Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Mail Vans (Parking)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware of the congestion produced in Lower Wimpole Street by Post Office vans which take up travelling space on both sides of the thoroughfare; and if he will take steps to lessen it in the interests of the travelling public.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): Yes. I am aware of it and we do our very best to minimise the inconvenience. The real trouble is that, owing to the shift of business from the City to the West End, this office is being asked to cope with much more traffic than when it was built. The only solution is a new office with access to the Post Office railway, and plans for this are being pushed ahead as quickly as possible.

Sir T. Moore: While not quite agreeing with my hon. Friend, may I ask him whether, if it is absolutely essential to have Post Office vans parked on either side of the street, some arrangement could not be made with the police so that private cars are prohibited from parking at the same time, as this makes passage through the street quite impossible?

Mr. Gammans: The parking of cars is primarily the responsibility of the police, but I admit that the problem is there and, as I have told my hon. Friend, I hope that we can make a start on a permanent solution to it before too long.

Mr. McGovern: Is Wimpole Street in Ayr Burghs, Mr. Speaker?

Sir J. Crowder: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind also the tremendous congestion of vans and motor-cycles belonging to the Post Office in Francis Street, by the Army and Navy Stores? It is getting worse and worse every day.

Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir. I am afraid that is equally true, and for the same reason—the tremendous shift of business from the City to the West End.

Sir T. Moore: I note, Mr. Speaker, that you are not taking any notice of the interjection by the Hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and therefore I need not answer it.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will take action to prevent Post Office vans waiting in the middle of streets and thus stopping traffic.

Mr. Gammans: Post Office vans conform to the same traffic regulations as any other road users. If, however, my hon. Friend will let me have details of any particular case which has come to his notice, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Johnson: While assuring my hon. Friend that I can give him such particulars, may I ask if he will consider issuing a general instruction telling the drivers of vans not to do this, as I think that might meet the case?

Mr. Gammans: The instructions are pretty general. I think it would be much better if my hon. Friend would let me have particulars of any case he has in mind so that I can look into it.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the Minister make sure that in moving these Post Office vans it will not be to the Right, the same as the hon. Member?

Telegram Facilities (Service Men)

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why a birthday greetings cablegram to a Service man in Iraq costs 18s. 3d., when cablegrams to other places abroad cost only 2s. 6d.

Mr. Gammans: The Special Expeditionary Forces' Message rate of 2s. 6d. applies only to troops in Japan and Korea, and there is a similar service at 3s. 6d. for troops in Malaya. These concessions are made on behalf of the Service Departments to meet the special conditions in these operational areas, and I


have no authority to extend the cheap rates elsewhere. There is, however, an arrangement for troops in all parts of the world whereby their next-of-kin may send them two telegrams a month on urgent private business at ordinary inland rates.

Mr. Davies: Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether it is well known in the country that these privileges exist for two messages a month to next-of-kin?

Mr. Gammans: I think so, but I will look into the point that the hon. Member has raised.

Trade Union Recognition

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what conditions have to be fulfilled by a claimant association in order that it may obtain recognition as a trade union for negotiations with the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Gammans: As was said by my noble Friend in another place on 30th July, and by myself in a similar statement in this House, it would be unwise to lay down any hard and fast rules for the future and he will continue to consider any future claims on their merits.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Are we to understand from that reply, therefore, that the 40 per cent. principle still holds and that the Postmaster-General adheres to that principle now as he did previously?

Mr. Gammans: There has never been a 40 per cent. principle in the sense that a 40 per cent. membership entitled a union to automatic recognition—

Mr. Langford-Holt: To consideration.

Mr. Gammans: It entitled them to consideration. Everybody is entitled to consideration.

Mailbag Thefts

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many thefts of mailbags in transit have occurred during the past year; and how the figure compares with the previous year.

Mr. Gammans: Out of roughly 350 million bags in transit, 734 bags were recorded as missing during the year ended 31st October, 1953. In the previous year the figure was 685.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Do not these figures reveal that the additional security precautions, which the Assistant Postmaster-General said were to be put into effect about a year ago, do not appear to be yielding satisfactory results, because the number of thefts is increasing and public anxiety is greater now than ever before?

Mr. Gammans: The number of bags stolen is not necessarily a good criterion. We have also to consider the number of bags which are tampered with, and where there has been pilfering going on. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member and the House that many increased precautions have been taken, but it would not be in the public interest to disclose what they are.

Mr. W. R. Williams: While thanking the Minister for the information he has already given, may I ask him two questions? First, is it not time that, in conjunction with British Railways, he tried to ensure that all railway mail vans are fitted with security cages not accessible to the travelling public? Secondly, is he and the administration perfectly satisfied that the arrangements on platforms, particularly at termini, are sufficiently good to give that measure of security which is necessary?

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman has raised a very big question. I can assure him on the first point that we have made arrangements with the railways to increase very rapidly the number of vans with cages in them. Regarding security generally, I must warn the House that Post Office security arrangements were made on the assumption that this is fundamentally an honest country. If we have to envisage gang robberies in the streets of London, or widespread pilfering, we shall have to introduce different methods of precaution all over the country.

Mr. Williams: It is a very serious thing and the reputation of a large number of Post Office workers is involved. Whatever may have been the practice in the past they are entitled to the fullest defence. Is it not therefore reasonable, if the circumstances nationally have changed, that we should be up to date in our preventive measures?

Mr. Gammans: We have much increased our precautionary measures during the past year, but as I have said, if we have to envisage an entirely different level of honesty in this country, then we shall have to change them even more drastically.

Mr. Russell: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take to improve the security of mailbags in transit on British Railways.

Mr. Gammans: It would not be in the public interest for me to reveal the exact details of the security arrangements agreed between the Post Office and British Railways for the security of mails travelling by rail, but I can assure my hon. Friend that they are continuously adapted to meet, as far as possible, the changing circumstances of our times.

Mr. Russell: Is my hon. Friend aware that mailbags are frequently left lying about on dingy station platforms after dark, where anybody can tamper with them, and does he think that the most secure method of dealing with them?

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. I thought I had dealt with this matter pretty thoroughly when answering a previous Question. These arrangements have been in force for many years and have hitherto proved adequate. But, if the circumstances have changed, we may have to change our methods as well.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the Minister give an assurance that in respect of mailbags there is a closer degree of cooperation now between the Post Office and the railway police than there may have been a year or two ago?

Mr. Gammans: When letters go by rail they are primarily the responsibility of British Railways and the Post Office.

Mr. G. Jeger: Does the hon. Gentleman take account of the changed circumstances in that we now have a Government who are giving every encouragement to private enterprise and, consequently, greater security is necessary?

Mr. Gammans: The Government may be giving every encouragement to private enterprise, but they are certainly not giving every encouragement to thieves and robbers.

Mail Deliveries, London (Delays)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware of the labour difficulties that are being experienced in delivery of mail in the London area; and what steps are being taken to bring about an improvement.

Mr. Gammans: Last week in the E.C. district of London there were regrettable delays in the delivery of mails. The main reason was the overhaul in postmen's duties which takes place from time to time. A contributory cause was the unexpected arrival of exceptionally large foreign mails. The position now, I am glad to be able to assure the House, is much better and should rapidly return to normal as the postmen become accustomed to their new duties.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that not for two weeks but for the last two months there have been considerable delays in the West Central area which have caused great inconvenience to industry? Would he look into the matter and bring about some improvement?

Mr. Gammans: It is news to me about the West Central district, but if my hon. and gallant Friend, or any other hon. Members, will provide me with details, I shall certainly have the matter investigated.

Mr. Snow: So that we may keep this matter in the right proportion, may I ask if it is not a matter on which to congratulate the Post Office workers concerned that it is possible to post a letter in South Kensington at mid-day and have it delivered at the House of Commons at 3.30 p.m. on the same day?

Slot Machines

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the maximum allowance made to purchasers of postage stamps at slot machines when the mechanism breaks down and fails to deliver the stamps; and what records are kept of the difference between cash received and stamps delivered.

Mr. Gammans: There is no fixed limit to the amount which may be refunded.


Every Post Office which controls a stamp-selling machine keeps a record of stamps placed in the machine, the cash collected, and any surplus or deficiency. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind and will let me have particulars, I will gladly made inquiry.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at least one Post Office in my area refuses to pay more than 3d. even though a potential customer has put in 1s. and got nothing back? If that is the principle, does he not agree that it encourages dishonesty?

Mr. Gammans: That is the type of case which I hope the hon. Gentleman will send me.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question about the records which are kept of the difference between cash received and stamps delivered?

Mr. Gammans: The records are kept on a regional basis and it would require a lot of digging out to enable me to give the total figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Interference (Electrical Appliances)

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will make it compulsory to fit suppressors to all electrical appliances in order to eliminate interference with television.

Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend will be guided by the advice he receives from the Committees established for this purpose under Part II of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, which have not yet made a final report.

Mr. Williams: Regardless of what that report contains, will my hon. Friend at least make it compulsory to fit suppressors to old cars? Is he aware that this has been already made compulsory on new cars. It is no use his saying that to impose compulsion in respect of new cars will need an army of officials to carry it out, because silencers, trade plates and good brakes have already to be seen to and so this will not entail much work. Is he also aware that the cost will be negligible?

Mr. Gammans: It is not a question of the cost of the suppressors, but it is not the slightest use the House bringing in a regulation unless we can enforce it. We have gone into this and there is no means of effectively enforcing this requirement in respect of old cars unless we are prepared to recruit a corps of officials.

Mr. Hobson: In view of the fact that the Wireless Telegraphy Act has been on the Statute Book for four years and it is three years since technical committees were appointed, is it not possible to get a move on with the general question of interference, let alone interference by old motor cars?

Mr. Gammans: I should be glad if this Committee could report more quickly, but they have told us that there are great difficulties in the way. As I told the House two weeks ago, this problem of suppressing interference is going to be far more difficult than many of us imagined in the first instance.

Subscription Television

Mrs. White: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what investigation he has made into systems of subscription or "Pay as you view" television, details of which have been sent to him.

Mr. Gammans: I am aware that various systems of subscription television are being tried out experimentally in the United States, and we are studying developments with interest. There does not seem to be any scope at present for such a system in this country.

Mrs. White: Has the hon. Gentleman received any applications from any firms in this country—any inquiry about the possible establishment of that system?

Mr. Gammans: I do not think so, but if the hon. Lady will put that Question down I will let her know definitely.

Mr. Ness Edwards: To save the hon. Gentleman in future, will he tell us what authority he has for answering this Question? It has nothing to do with him.

Frequency Allocations

Captain Orr: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that there is freely available a


published list of frequency allocations for both Government and civil use in the United States of America, he will make the same information public regarding frequency allocations in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gammans: I am consulting other interested Government Departments to see to what extent such information can be published in this country.

Captain Orr: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is welcome information, and that up to now we have assumed that the hush-hush policy of the G.P.O. was to protect their tyranny and arbitrary power?

Television White Paper

Captain Orr: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when the White Paper on the future of television is to be published.

Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir; on Friday.

Captain Orr: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that the White Paper will contain no such nonsensical suggestion as another public corporation?

Mr. Gammans: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend and the House generally had better wait and read the White Paper.

Channel Spacings

Captain Orr: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that there is waste of valuable very high frequency space through the use of excessive channel spacings because of obsolete equipment, both civil and military; and whether he will insist upon minimum channel spacings being applied by all users as early as possible.

Mr. Gammans: I cannot agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that channel spacings are generally excessive, but it is true that some of them could be reduced with more modern equipment. There is, however, a limit to which the Government would be justified in compelling large numbers of users to replace their otherwise satisfactory equipment at short notice.

Captain Orr: Will my hon. Friend impress upon the Defence Departments the need for the conservation of frequency space?

Old Age Pensioners (Licences)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will arrange that all old age pensioners and those in receipt of pensions for being blind may obtain an annual wireless licence and television licence free of charge on production of their pension order book.

Mr. Gammans: The blind now receive a sound broadcasting receiving licence free: successive Governments have, however, felt that this concession could not be extended to other sections of the community.

Mr. Lewis: I am very much obliged for the information that the blind now get a licence for radio. Can the hon. Gentleman not see his way clear to grant old age pensioners a radio and television licence because this is an admirable way of helping them without in any way affecting the cost of living?

Mr. Gammans: I think I have answered that point in my original answer—that successive Governments have looked into this and felt that they could not extend this concession to other sections of the community—

Mr. Lewis: Why not?

Mr. Gammans: It is a matter of cost.

Mr. Fernyhough: If the hon. Gentleman cannot make things easier for the old age pensioners in this respect, will he give an assurance that he has no intention in the immediate future of making things harder for them by increasing the cost of these licences?

Mr. Gammans: The whole question of B.B.C. finance is now under consideration.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the estimated cost to his Department of allowing all old age pensioners, and those in receipt of pensions for being blind, an annual wireless and television licence free of charge on production of their pension order book.

Mr. Gammans: So far as can be estimated, the cost would be from £2 to £4 million a year, depending on how many households included old age pensioners, and how many of them had television sets. The cost would not fall on the Post Office but would have to be made up by the general body of broadcasting licence holders.

Meteorological Sonde

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General on what frequency band the new system of meteorological sonde is to operate; and how far the frequencies at present allotted to meteorological sonde will still be used for that purpose.

Mr. Gammans: The new system of meteorological sonde will operate on frequencies of 152·5 and 2,850 megacycles per second. Frequencies at present used for meteorological sonde will continue to be used for that purpose.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can we be assured, therefore, that the frequencies that are not so used will be available for re-allocation?

Mr. Gammans: That is another question, and I would ask my hon. Friend to put it down.

Mr. J. T. Price: As it appears that most Members of the House are ignorant of what this technical term means, can we have an explanation of it?

Mr. Gammans: I do not mind confessing to the House that I was ignorant of it when I saw it on the Order Paper. I understand it is a method of testing the temperature, pressure and humidity of the upper air and is done by comparing the intensity of signals emitted at varying heights.

Alternative Programme (Television)

Mr. Murray: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps have been taken or are contemplated to develop the television facilities of the British Broadcasting Corporation so that an alternative programme of the Corporation will be made available to those who view with regret the Government's proposal to permit commercial television; and, bearing in mind the fact that the safeguards so far tentatively proposed do not appear to be adequate, what other measures are contemplated to avoid commercial exploitation of television.

Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C.'s first task is to provide national coverage for their existing programme, and it is too early for the Government to take a decision on the question of an alternative programme, as envisaged in the Corporation's 10-year plan. As to the last part of the Question, I would ask the hon. Member to await the White Paper.

Mr. Murray: Will the Question I have put down be given due consideration when the time comes for this consideration?

Mr. Gammans: I can promise the hon. Gentleman that this and many other factors will be taken into consideration.

Television Transmitter, Isle of Wight (Coverage)

Mr. Stevens: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the effective range of the permanent television transmitter to be built in the Isle of Wight.

Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. expects that the coverage given by the permanent station at the Isle of Wight will extend along the South Coast from Lyme Regis in the West to Seaford in the East, and will include the counties of Hampshire and Dorset, the western half of Sussex and parts of Wiltshire, Somerset, Berkshire and Surrey.

Mr. Stevens: Can my hon. Friend say what progress has been made in the erection of this transmitter?

Mr. Gammans: This is being dealt with by the B.B.C. but I was asked a question two weeks ago, and from memory I think the answer was that it is expected to be operating towards the end of next year.

Third Programme Reception, South Wales

Mr Gower: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why steps were taken earlier this year which have reduced in South Wales the power and quality of reception of the Third Programme of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and what steps will be taken to restore the former quality and power of that service.

Mr. Gammans: The power had to be reduced as a result of a fault in the main aerial. Some of the loss has been made good and the B.B.C. will resume full power operation as soon as possible.

Mr. Gower: Is the Minister aware that this programme was greatly enjoyed in South Wales where cultural values are still appreciated? Did he note the views of certain professors and lecturers at University College, Cardiff, which I brought to his notice, that this programme had not been restored in quality or in power, and will he look into the matter again?

Mr. Gammans: As I said, I hope this station will be restored to full power before too long.

Mr. C. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that in North Wales, where a very large proportion of people appreciate this programme, the reception is almost nonexistent?

Mr. Gammans: The Question deals only with South Wales.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Perthshire it is impossible to get a good reception of the Third Programme at all and that there cultural appreciation is even higher than in the other two places which have been mentioned?

B.B.C. Finance (Consultations)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General, in view of the necessity of making an early decision in respect of additional finance for the British Broadcasting Corporation to enable improvements to be made in its television service, what progress has been made in the consultations taking place with the Corporation; and when a decision on British Broadcasting Corporation finance is likely to be made known.

Mr. Gammans: The whole question is being reviewed by the Government, but I regret that I am unable to say when a decision is likely to be reached.

Mr. Dodds: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed me that the hon. Gentleman would reply to this Question, will he deal with the point which asks what progress has been made in the consultations? Has any progress been made?

Mr. Gammans: A lot of progress has been made, but the consultations are still going on.

Mr. Dodds: For how long?

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Will my hon. Friend initiate conversations with the British Broadcasting Corporation to see whether the expansion cannot be financed by capital borrowing rather than by taking the money from licence revenue? Will he bear in mind that the Beveridge Committee recommended that this Cor-

poration should do the same as other corporations and borrow instead of financing from revenue?

Mr. Gammans: It is true that the B.B.C. have financed capital development out of revenue. That, as well as other matters, will be considered in the discussions.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the urgency of this matter, cannot the hon. Gentleman give some idea whether it will be this year or next year when the consultations finish?

Mr. Gammans: I think I answered that question when I said that I hope that the deliberations will not take too long.

Mr. Dodds: But how long?

North-East Coast

Mr. Grey: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if, in view of the shared wavelength between the North-East Coast and Northern Ireland, he will press the need to place the first very high frequency station in the North-East coast area.

Mr. Gammans: This area has already been promised priority.

Mr. Grey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of the North-East are losing their patience over having to endure this business for so long and that that attitude is fully expressed in the correspondence which I and my colleagues from the North-East have received from many organisations? Can we have an assurance that this matter will be speeded up? Can the hon. Gentleman forecast a date?

Mr. Gammans: I cannot forecast a date, but I hope that it falls to my lot to preside at the divorce between the North-East Coast and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that we shall have some arrangement made in the next six months? Does the hon. Gentleman mean by his hope that this may be done very soon, or does he mean within the next two or three years?

Mr. Gammans: The first development must be the Television Advisory Committee's advice on the form of modulation which will be used for very high frequency, and they have not given that yet.

Captain Orr: Is my hon. Friend aware that Northern Ireland would welcome the divorce most heartily? As there is no certainty that V.H.F. will solve the problem, would not it be better to abolish the Third Programme?

Mr. Grey: Will this very high frequency station have priority over sponsored television?

Mr. Gammans: That is an entirely different question.

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, but if the North-East, which is a very large area in terms of population, has to choose between sponsored television, which will be very costly and use up a great many resources, and having this matter attended to, surely they would prefer this rather than sponsored television?

Mr. Gammans: It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is right, but it will not fall to the North-East to choose. There is no question of choice. The two things have nothing in common.

Mr. Grey: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

Bristol Ambulance Service (Frequencies)

Mr. Benn: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why the Bristol Corporation ambulance service radio communications are to be moved to a new frequency; what consultations took place with the corporation before this decision was reached; and why the full cost of this frequency charge will have to be borne by the citizens of Bristol.

Mr. Gammans: The Bristol Corporation ambulance service has not been asked by my Department to change its radio frequency.

Mr. Benn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Bristol Corporation are very anxious about this and that I have in my hand a letter from his Department in which he indicates that a change of the ambulance frequency will be necessary? Is he also aware that if the citizens of Bristol are put to great expense in changing their ambulance frequency to make room for sponsored television there will be great resentment in the area?

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman can get that bogey out of his mind. The two things have nothing whatever in common. Licences which are issued are subject to the condition that the frequencies may have to be changed. As I told the hon. Gentleman, Bristol has never been asked by my Department to change its radio frequency.

Brigadier Clarke: Can my hon. Friend give us an assurance that if licences have to be changed, either for corporations or for private individuals, some compensation will be given for the changing of the wave-band.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir, I cannot give that assurance at all. Licences are issued on the condition that they can be changed and that no compensation will be payable. Those are the conditions under which people accept the licences.

Mr. Awbery: As the change is the responsibility of the Postmaster-General, will he not also carry the responsibility of paying for it, not only in Bristol but in all the other localities involved?

Mr. Gammans: I have just answered that point.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Can we have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he will stand by the terms of the licence and, when clearing out Bands I and 2, will not encourage rackets when people have to make changes?

Commercial Programmes

Mr. Benn: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General for an assurance that it is still Government policy to ban all political and religious subjects on commercialised television.

Mr. Gammans: I would ask the hon. Member to await the White Paper.

Mr. Benn: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why the assurance which was given openly and publicly in the last White Paper on television should not be reaffirmed by the hon. Gentleman before the new White Paper is issued? If he repeats the pledge, it will be received with great thanks on this side of the House.

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman need only contain himself until Friday afternoon.

Arts (B.B.C. Patronage)

Dr. Stross: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the British Broadcasting Corporation is not able to function adequately as a patron of the arts, or to assist in the creation of new work, owing to its restricted income; and what action is contemplated to overcome this difficulty.

Mr. Gammans: I am not aware of any such failure on the part of the B.B.C., nor have the Corporation complained to my noble Friend that they cannot function adequately as a patron of the arts owing to lack of funds. Indeed, I think most people would agree that the Corporation is one of the greatest present-day patrons of the arts.

Dr. Stross: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that he has missed the whole point of the Question? Does he not know that the B.B.C., which is a notable user of the arts, but has not the money to ask for new presentations or new forms from artists, is not, therefore, a true patron? It is not a creative patron of the arts but a great and very magnificent user. We want patronage in view of the fact that we cannot now afford it personally.

Mr. Gammans: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should listen to the Third Programme for a week or two. If he does that, I think he will agree that the B.B.C. is not pandering to the low taste of earthy extroverts but is helping the arts in every possible way.

Dr. Stross: Can I not make apparent to the Assistant Postmaster-General what I am asking? Of course, there is a magnificent presentation of all forms of the arts by the B.B.C., but the B.B.C. cannot ask artists to offer them new creations and new forms, and it is not patronage.

Mr. Gammans: If I undertsand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is complaining that the B.B.C. has not enough money. If that is true, the B.B.C. has not said so.

V.H.F. Development

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he has examined the British Broadcasting Corporation's plan to spend £1,500,000 of their licence revenue

to relaying the Third, Light and Home programmes on very high frequencies by means of 51 new transmitters and several new stations; and if he has yet examined the more economical methods adopted in Germany in bringing into operation 70 relay stations on these frequencies.

Mr. Gammans: The first task is to settle the question of modulation, and my noble Friend is awaiting the report of the Television Advisory Committee on this subject. When this has been done, we will examine the B.B.C.'s programme of V.H.F. development in the light of practical experience in other countries including Germany.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, while the need for an improved sound service in some areas is realised, it seems to be a very large sum of money to spend on relaying the three sound service programmes, and it takes up an undue amount of the spectrum now available?

Mr. Gammans: I can assure my hon. Friend that when the report is published my noble Friend will give very careful consideration to the matter of cost.

Mr. Hobson: Will the hon. Gentleman make arrangements for his own wireless engineers, apart from those of the B.B.C., to visit Germany and see the new method in operation?

Mr. Gammans: I will look into the point. It is a very good idea.

Plymouth Television Station

Mr. G. Wilson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether any decision has yet been made as to the site of the Plymouth television station, following the public inquiry at Exeter in September last.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir. I am awaiting the outcome of the inquiry.

Mr. Wilson: Will my hon. Friend do everything he can to expedite a decision, for this is causing delay in the provision of a television service for Cornwall?

Mr. Gammans: I am not making the inquiry. It is being made by another Ministry.

GEE Navigation

Mr. Fell: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what frequencies are allocated for GEE navigation.

Mr. Gammans: The following are some of the frequency bands allocated to GEE: 29.7 to 31.7 megacycles per second; 68.0 to 70.0 megacycles per second, and 72.8 to 74.8 megacycles per second. It would not be in the national interest to name all the bands allocated to this service.

Fire and Police Services

Mr. Fell: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how much of the frequency band, 80–84 megacycles, is allocated and used for purposes other than fire and police services.

Mr. Gammans: The band 80–83 megacycles per second is allocated to fixed and land mobile services and the band 83–84 megacycles per second to aeronautical radionavigation, fixed and land mobile services. Both bands are at present occupied solely by services operated by fire brigades and the police.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Bradford

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephone installation are still outstanding in the City of Bradford; and what were the comparative figures for the same period last year, and the total of new subscribers during the past 12 months.

Mr. Gammans: One thousand four hundred and seventy applications were outstanding at 30th September, 1953, as compared with 2,479 a year ago. Two thousand nine hundred and thirty-eight new lines were connected during the year.

Mr. Craddock: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for that reply. Will he keep the matter under active consideration?

Mr. Gammans: indicated assent.

Shared Lines

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the Government's policy in relation to shared telephones; and how many complaints

he has received from ministers of religion and professional persons against this practice.

Mr. Gammans: In order to make the most effective use of our limited capital resources, we have to ask all new and removing residential subscribers to accept the liability to share their lines. This system has enabled us since the war to put over 300,000 people on the telephone who would not otherwise have one. Considering the initial, and very natural, doubts and reluctance which people have to sharing, we have had remarkably few complaints, and my belief is that most people find the service very satisfactory.

Mr. Enroll: Can the Assistant Postmaster-General say whether this is to be the permanent policy of the telephone service or whether we may some day in the future all be able to have our own lines again?

Mr. Gammans: Sharing may have come to stay, but I should like to do away with compulsory sharing at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. G. Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman say what categories of people are not expected to share?

Mr. Gammans: One category which does not share is Members of Parliament.

Mr. Thomas: I know, but what are the others?

Subscribers (Change of Address)

Mr. Gower: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will take steps to ensure that in future when a telephone subscriber moves to another house he shall be given high priority for the provision of a telephone there; and that, in all such cases, such a subscriber shall be given the opportunity of retaining a telephone already installed in his new residence.

Mr. Gammans: A removing residential subscriber is given priority over a new residential applicant, but not over a business applicant. When anyone moves to a house where a telephone already exists, the normal rule is to let him keep it, except in certain areas where the waiting list is very long due to a shortage of local lines or exchange equipment.

Mr. Gower: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he agrees that, in normal circumstances and other things being equal, old subscribers do merit some extra consideration?

Leicester

Mr. Janner: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for the supply of telephones in Leicester are at present awaiting attention; how many of these have been outstanding for periods between six months and 12 months; how many for longer than 12 months; and by what date, approximately, they will all have been complied with.

Mr. Gammans: Two thousand seven hundred and sixty-three applications were outstanding on 30th September, 1953, which is a reduction of more than 1,000 during the last 12 months. Three hundred and forty-seven applications have been outstanding between six and 12 months and 1,207 for over 12 months. Our aim is to continue reducing the waiting list, but I regret I cannot say when all outstanding applications will be met.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister inquire into those cases which are so highly essential for our public services and say whether the people who are concerned with those services will be given the facilities of a telephone service?

Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Gentleman has any case of a priority service sponsored by a Government Department where an application has been refused, I shall of course look at it at once.

Mr. Janner: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware that difficulties are being experienced by the residents of Braunstone Frith, Leicester, owing to the non-availability of telephone booths there; and when he proposes to have these installed.

Mr. Gammans: I understand that only 14 of the houses on this new estate have been finished so far. We plan to provide a new kiosk on the estate as soon as the pavements have been made up, as well as two others very close to the estate. There is already one kiosk about half a mile away.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister inquire again of those who know, when he will

discover that there are many more than 14 houses on that estate? Will he see to it that these booths are provided as speedily as possible in view of the difficulties confronting parents in regard to transport to the schools, facilities for doctors, and so on?

Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Gentleman feels that those figures are wrong and will communicate with me, I will investigate, but, as I have said, we are planning to put up the new kiosks as soon as the pavements are made up.

Scotland

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for new telephones are now outstanding in Scotland; and what the corresponding figure was last year.

Mr. Gammans: Thirty-five thousand nine hundred and sixty-four applications were outstanding at the 30th September, 1953, as compared with 40,541 12 months ago.

Major Anstruther-Gray: May we take it from those figures that the number of applications outstanding is being steadily reduced?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, Sir. I think the number will be reduced even more. The number would have gone down more quickly if it had not been for the repair of storm damage in Scotland at the beginning of this year.

Major Anstruther-Gray: May we look forward to a faster rate of reduction in the next 12 months?

Mr. Gammans: I hope so, so long as there are no more storms.

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephones are now outstanding in North Berwick; and how this figure compares with the number 12 months ago.

Mr. Gammans: There were 64 applications outstanding on 31st October, 1953, but 38 of these will be connected during the next three months. The number outstanding 12 months ago was 53.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Can my hon. Friend also deal with the problem of shared lines, of which there are rather too many in North Berwick?

Mr. Gammans: I answered a Question about that subject earlier this afternoon.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many telephone lines would be required to supply the waiting list in Glasgow at the end of October; and when he expects to be able to give the service required.

Mr. Gammans: The number at 30th September, 1953, which is the latest available, was 11,465, this being 1,221 less than a year ago. We are fitting telephones as fast as our resources allow, but I regret that I cannot say when it will be possible to give service to all applicants.

Mr. Bennett: Can my hon. Friend say whether it is material or labour, or both, which is holding up provision of the additional lines?

Mr. Gammans: Chiefly exchange equipment.

Mr. Lee: Is not it wrong that at the same time skilled engineers who make these parts should be dismissed from London factories?

Mr. W. G. Bennett: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applicants are awaiting telephone installations in the Western and Kelvin exchange areas of Glasgow; and when he expects to satisfy their requirements.

Mr. Gammans: The number is 930, this being 134 less than a year ago. I regret that I cannot say when all the outstanding applications will be met.

Mr. Bennett: Is the Minister aware of the growing irritation and dissatisfaction with his Department in the Glasgow area?

Mr. Gammans: I am sorry to hear that. We are reducing the waiting list considerably, and I hope that we shall be able to increase the rate of decrease in the coming year.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Having regard to the number of similar Questions on the Order Paper today, and to the experience of every Member of Parliament on both sides of the House on this question of long waiting lists and slow development, is not it time that the hon. Gentleman's noble Friend took up the matter seriously with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to a readjustment of the allocation for this purpose?

Mr. Gammans: I must remind the House that we have reduced the waiting list in the past year by 60,000.

Mr. Lee: Is not it true to say that while the Government are causing people to be dismissed from employment they cannot be said to be meeting adequately the demand which hon. Members are expressing?

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman has raised a question that is not on the Order Paper. I assure him that the Post Office is causing nobody to be dismissed. No Post Office orders have been cancelled in North London or anywhere else.

WEATHER SHIPS, NORTH ATLANTIC

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the future arrangements regarding the British weather ships operating in the Atlantic; and how many he intends to maintain on this service.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): It is too early to say what ocean weather ship service, if any, it will be possible to operate in the North Atlantic after June, 1954, when the United States ceases to contribute. It is certain, however, that any scheme that lacked United States support would be smaller and less effective than the present arrangements.

Air Commodore Harvey: Has my hon. Friend taken into account the fact that, if the British maintain the weather ships in the Atlantic, foreign countries, including the United States, who do nothing to maintain ships there, will get the benefit of the British service when they are flying the Atlantic from East to West? Is it right that the British taxpayers should pay for this when there is no reciprocal service the other side?

Mr. Ward: My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that the question of whether it will be worth while maintaining a service after the United States have withdrawn must be a subject for discussion between ourselves and the other signatories to the agreement, and that it is too early yet to give a definite answer.

Mr. Woodburn: As this is a very important matter, would it not be advisable


—although it may be of lesser importance than the other great subjects to be discussed—that consultations on this subject should take place when the Prime Minister meets the President of the United States, in an attempt to get the United States to continue a service which is essential in all circumstances?

Mr. Ward: I shall certainly bear that in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Air Ministry Staff

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why the number of persons described as "Other scientific, professional and technical staff" has increased from 288 in 1952–53 to 331 in 1953–54.

Mr. Ward: The figures quoted by my hon. Friend are the forecasts in the Air Estimates. The numbers employed were: 263 on 1st April, 1952; 290 on 1st April, 1953; and 303 on 1st October, 1953. The largest single increase was in technical staff for radar duties.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why the staff of the Department of the Air Member for Supply and Organisation has been increased from 2,417 in 1952–53 to 2,608 in 1953–54.

Mr. Ward: The figures quoted by my hon. Friend are the forecasts in the Air Estimates. The numbers employed were 2,404 on 1st April, 1952; 2,547 on 1st April, 1953; and 2,587 on 1st October, 1953. This small rise is due to the increased volume of work resulting from the expansion of the Royal Air Force, much of which falls on the Department of the Air Member for Supply and Organisation. My noble Friend is satisfied that the numbers employed are warranted by the work to be done.

Mr. Taylor: May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and, as the figures are still going up, ask him to observe the strictest economy in the employment of additional staff?

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would my hon. Friend please bear in mind the fact, which has been confirmed in many other commercial undertakings, that the more hands through which plans for the proposed

development of machinery have to pass the longer is the time taken?

Mr. Ward: Yes, Sir. We are expanding the Royal Air Force airfields and storage depots, but the increase is only 7·6 per cent.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why there has been an increase in the number of assistant principals employed in the Department of the Permanent Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Ward: There has, in fact, been no increase in the number of assistant principals in the Air Ministry over the last year.

Works and Lands (Expenditure)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the expenditure of £70 million on works and lands in 1953–54 was due to expenditure incurred primarily at home or abroad.

Mr. Ward: Primarily at home.

Mr. Erroll: Is this enormous sum absolutely essential? Can it not be reduced in any other way?

Mr. Ward: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are watching every penny we spend as carefully as possible. As he knows as well as I do, the cost of these works services is very great and is rising all the time.

Royal Observer Corps

Mr. Erroll: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what proportion of the pay of the members of the Royal Observer Corps goes to those who are engaged on administration; and what proportion to whose who undertake observation.

Mr. Ward: We estimate that the full-time officers of the Royal Observer Corps, who constitute only one-two-hundredth of the total strength and who alone draw pay, spend between one-quarter and one-third of their time on administrative duties as distinct from recruiting training, operations and exercises.

Mr. Erroll: Is there any hope of this large proportion of time spent on administration being reduced?

Mr. Ward: I should have thought that one-third of their time was not very great for administering a large corps like this.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Traffic Lights (Pedestrians)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will introduce legislation to make the observance of automatic traffic lights by pedestrians compulsory.

The Minister of Transport and of Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): It is not my present intention to deal with this particular matter by legislation.

Sir T. Moore: Surely my right hon. Friend will remember that this point has been always in dispute and has never been really settled. Does he not think that, in the interests of the people concerned it is time a clear ruling were given?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am satisfied that it would be impossible for the very overburdened police effectively to enforce observance of traffic lights by pedestrians, but there may be other ways in which responsibility for safety on the roads can be spread more fairly among all road users, and I am looking at those other ways.

Mr. Usborne: When considering traffic lights, does the Minister realise that the two colours used are the very ones that most colour-blind people most consistently confuse?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That has been frequently argued, but my predecessors and others have come to the conclusion that these are the best colours for the vast majority of road users who, I am glad to say, are not colour-blind.

Mr. Nicholson: Has it ever been seriously suggested that in the middle of the night some wretched pedestrian should have to wait until a car comes along and changes the lights?

Accidents (Children)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many elementary school children were killed or injured on the roads during the last

period of one year of which he has a record, and also during the previous year; and in how many of these cases the accident took place while going to and from school.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The statistics do not distinguish between elementary and other school children. In 1951, the number of children between the ages of five and 15 killed, seriously injured and slightly injured on the roads were 554, 6,961 and 25,119, a total of 32,634, and in 1952 the comparable figures were 460 killed, 6,805 seriously injured and 24,538 slightly injured, a total of 31,803. I cannot say how many of these accidents occurred on the way to and from school, but I will send the hon. Member a copy of "Road Accidents, 1951" which gives the times when casualties occurred to children. The most dangerous hour seems to be between 4 and 5 o'clock in the afternoon.

Mr. Hastings: In view of his last statement, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that every care is taken to prevent accidents when children are returning from school?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sure that a great deal of care is taken, but I should hesitate to say that everything is perfect, because clearly a number did occur in that hour. In consultation with my colleagues, I am always looking for a way to improve safety in this direction.

Mr. G. Thomas: Has the Minister an arrangement with the police in various parts of the country so that their patrols are on duty in the afternoon when accidents of this kind take place?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Through the Ministry of Education and the Home Office, we have arrangements in most parts of the country and we are always anxious to perfect them.

Mr. Lewis: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the very dangerous situation on the Great Cambridge Road, at Edmonton, where the Edmonton County Grammar School is situated on the main arterial road, and the derestriction for the 30-mile-an-hour limit is lifted right outside the school so that motorists are allowed to go at any speed they like without any restriction whatever? Will he not look at this particular case?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: While congratulating the hon. Gentleman on being able to get that point across, I will certainly look at that particular case.

Safety Week (Accidents)

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he now has figures of road accidents occurring during Road Safety Week; and if they are greater or smaller than the average for comparable periods in October over the past three years.

Mr. Orbach: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is in a position to announce the accident figures for National Road Safety Week; and how they compare with the previous week and with the same week in 1952.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This information is not yet available, but I am making special arrangements to publish figures soon, including a comparison with the same week in October, 1952.

Mrs. White: Does the Minister consider that it is worth holding a road safety week and concentrating public attention on this matter and not also arranging for these figures to be published much more rapidly?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have to have some regard for the difficulties of police in this matter, and there is also the fact that there was this year a petrol strike which naturally threw out the value of all the calculations. On reflection, I think there is a case for speeding up the return and I have arranged to do it.

Loch Lomond (Parking Facilities)

Mr. Steele: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of places on the Loch Lomond Road along the total distance from Balloch to Ardlui where motorists can draw in to enable them to admire the view of the loch.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There are eight properly constructed lay-byes from which a clear view of the Loch can be obtained, and in addition there are 40 places giving a partial view of the Loch, where motorists can draw off the carriageway.

Mr. Steele: I am rather interested to know from where the Minister obtains

his information. The road in question is very narrow, and any motorist who tried to draw in would be in a dangerous position. Would the Minister agree to discuss the matter with the burgh?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will gladly discuss it. My information came from the officers in the county, and I am satisfied as to their accuracy. I understand in addition that in these eight properly constructed lay-by places 45 cars can rest. I will gladly discuss the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Heavy Goods Vehicles (Speed Limit)

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that the 20 miles per hour speed limit for heavy vehicles is not being enforced; and what consideration he has given to the need for amending legislation in this respect.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have given a good deal of thought to this matter, but I have nothing to add to the answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) on 28th October, and to previous statements on this subject.

Mr. Williams: Was my right hon. Friend in the House a few minutes ago when the Assistant Postmaster-General told us that it was no good having a law unless we enforced it? Does he realise that the present position is weakening the whole legal system and that the reason my right hon. Friend has given so far is not satisfactory?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think my views on this matter are sufficiently well known, but there are other difficulties, apart from enforcement, in this field. Last year and in the two previous years there were 30,000 prosecutions for exceeding the speed limit, but I cannot say how many related to heavy goods vehicles.

Licence Application Form (Radio Sets)

Mr. Enroll: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether the granting of a motor vehicle licence will in future be dependent upon answering


the questions in the revised vehicle licence application form No. R.F.I.A. which relate to the licensing of the vehicle's radio set.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: An applicant is required to furnish such particulars as may be prescribed, and unless those particulars are furnished a council can refuse to issue a licence.

Mr. Erroll: Does this answer mean that the Post Office are using the local authorities to do their work for them, and that the licence is refused if the motorist has not replied to the two additional questions?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have stated the situation in my answer, and I must point out that no one likes asking questions of this kind. The best way to make these questions unnecessary is for what the Post Office estimated as one third of the people who had these cars last year to pay their proper dues.

Mr. Erroll: Will my right hon. Friend put in another question asking people whether they have paid their garage rent.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

ROADS (CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS)

Mr. Pargiter: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 27th November, I shall call attention to the need for a long-term plan for the improvement of existing and the building of new roads to meet present day conditions, and move a Resolution.

LOCAL GOVERMENT (REORGANISATION)

Mr. G. Roberts: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 27th November, I shall call attention to the need for the reorganisation of local government, and move a Resolution.

ENGINEERING INDUSTRY

Mr. Hayman: I beg to give notice that, on Friday, 27th November, I shall call attention to the present state and future prospects in the engineering industry, and move a Resolution.

BILLS PRESENTED

HOUSING REPAIRS AND RENTS BILL

"to make further provision for the clearance and redevelopment of areas of unfit housing accommodation, and for securing or promoting the reconditioning and maintenance of houses; and otherwise to amend the enactments relating to housing and rent control," presented by Mr. Harold Macmillan; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Crook-shank and Mr. Marples; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to printed. [Bill 12.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

"to make provision with respect to the payment of Exchequer Grants to local authorities in Scotland in lieu of the grants payable to such authorities under Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948; with respect to the apportionment of the expenditure of county councils among burghs and landward areas, of the expenses of joint committees and other joint bodies among their constituent authorities, and of the payments made under Part V of the said Act of 1948, for the benefit of local authorities in Scotland by the British Transport Commission, the British Electricity Authority and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board among those local authorities; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. J. Stuart; supported by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter and Commander Galbraith; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

Orders of the Day — REGENCY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.33 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Gracious Message from the Queen which was read by you, Mr. Speaker, from the Chair on Wednesday, 4th November, invited us to consider an amendment to the Regency Act to provide that in the event of a child of Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh acceding to the Throne while under 18 years of age, and also in the event of a Regency becoming necessary during Her Majesty's lifetime while there is no child or grandchild of Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh who can be Regent, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh should be the Regent and be charged with the guardianship of the person of the Sovereign.
It also asked the House to consider two further amendments of the law; first, to enable the heir to the Throne to be capable of being Regent at 18 years of age, and secondly, to add Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother to the persons to be Counsellors of State when occasion arose for a delegation of Royal Functions to Counsellors of State.
The House immediately adopted an Address assuring Her Majesty that we would, with the least possible delay, proceed to the discussion of the important question which Her Majesty had been pleased to recommend to our consideration, and would proceed to provide such measures as may be necessary or expedient for securing the purposes to which Her Majesty had alluded, and the Bill, the Second Reading of which I have the honour to move, is the result. It is a short Measure designed to amend in three respects the Regency Act of 1937. As will be remembered, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House on 22nd July this year that amendment of the Regency Act, 1937, had been under consideration since shortly after the Queen's accession.
Before the Act of 1937, it had been the practice of Parliament to pass, when occasion required, a Regency Act framed in the light of the then existing circumstances. The Act of 1937 made general provisions for the performance of the Royal functions by a Regent in the name and on behalf of the Sovereign in certain circumstances, and for the delegation of Royal functions to Counsellors of State in certain other circumstances. The circumstances in which there would be a Regent were, first, when the Sovereign is under 18 at the time of his accession and until the Sovereign attains the age of 18, and, secondly, any period when the sovereign has been declared, as provided in Section 2 of the Act, to be suffering an infirmity of mind or body which renders him incapable of performing the Royal functions, or is not available for their performance. In all these circumstances the Regent would perform the Royal functions.
Thus, the Act of 1937 proceeded on the basis of making permanent provision to facilitate the uninterrupted exercise of the Royal authority during the minority, total incapacity, or total unavailability of the Sovereign. It provided that the Regent should be the person next in succession to the Throne and not subject to the disqualifications prescribed in Section 3 (2) of the Act. These disqualifications are that he is not a British subject of full age and domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom, or that he is a person incapable under Section 2 of the Act of Settlement of inheriting the Crown, that is, if he is a Roman Catholic or is married to a Roman Catholic.
Under these provisions the person who would become Regent, if the Duke of Cornwall or any other child of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh were to succeed to the Throne while under the age of 18, or if the Queen became totally incapacitated and there were no child or grandchild of sufficient years, would be the Princess Margaret. I am authorised to say that the Princess Margaret shares the desire of Her Majesty the Queen that the statutory provisions should be amended so that, if a Regency should become necessary, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh should become Regent.
What the Bill now before the House does is to make a limited exception to


the principle embodied in the Act of 1937 that Regency shall be exercised by the person with the necessary qualifications next in the line of succession to the Throne. It does not repeal that provision. It is designed to deal with the present circumstances.
The Amendment is confined to the Duke, and accordingly, in the event of the Duke's death, which we all fervently hope will not occur for many years, the Amendment would cease to have effect, and in the circumstances in which provision is made by the Bill for the Duke being the Regent, the Princess Margaret would, if alive, be Regent. This is in no sense an exclusion Bill.
I may be asked why it is that some 16 years after the Regency Act of 1937 was passed this course is being taken. I might further be asked whether I have in mind that the Home Secretary of the day said that the purpose of that Act was
to provide a general code which may be put into operation, if need be, in any cases in the future.
I have, and I have also in mind that that Act was introduced because it was thought that
instead of introducing such a Regency Bill … for a particular or possible case, the better course is to submit to Parliament this more comprehensive scheme to cover not only this particular contingency, but other contingencies which may arise from time to time in which the exercise of the Royal functions might become impossible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1937; Vol. 319, c. 1451–6.]
The answer can be given quite shortly. Much as one sympathises with, and appreciates, the desirability of having some general principle on which to act, the wit of man cannot foretell every contingency, or every set of circumstances, which may arise. The mantle of Elijah is notoriously difficult to don, and the most careful thoughts of 1937, when Her Gracious Majesty was barely 11 years old, do not seem to us to fit the circumstances of today.
The Act of 1937 provided not only for Regency, but for guardianship, of the Sovereign. It provided that if the Sovereign is under the age of 18 and unmarried, his mother, if living, should be guardian. It provided that, where the Sovereign, being married, is under 18 or declared incapable of discharging the Royal functions, the wife or husband, if

of full age, should be guardian. It did not provide for the father being guardian, but set out that, in every other case, the Regent should be guardian.
I cannot imagine anyone thinking that it could be right that, in the event of his child succeeding to the Throne under age, His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh should not be the guardian of the Sovereign. As soon as it is thought right that he should be the guardian, we are faced with the position of the Sovereign during these important and formative years immediately before he assumes the Royal power. Only from the Regent would he receive the practical instruction in the relevant problems which he will have to face. I do not need to look into the past, or speculate whether opposing households are still a possibility of the present. The interests of the prospective Sovereign surely make a combination of Regency, guardianship, and paternal influence, in the same hand, the most desirable course.
The ad hoc departure from the general principle which we propose is not revolutionary or unexampled. We have several precedents in which the surviving parent of the Sovereign was designated to be Regent, if a Regency should be necessary for a minor Sovereign. They stretch over the last 200 years. In 1751, Princess Augusta, the widow of Frederick, Prince of Wales, was made Regent in the event of the death of George II before his grandson attained the age of 18. In 1830, the Duchess of Kent was designated as the Regent if William IV died before Princess Victoria, as she then was, attained the age of 18. In 1840, Prince Albert was designated the Regent in the event of the death of Queen Victoria while the heir to the Throne was a minor. And in 1910, when the heir to the Throne was 16, Queen Mary was designated as Regent if King George V should die before the heir attained 18 years of age.
I hope that no one will think it out of place on my part if I say—indeed, I am sure that everyone will agree—that the Duke of Edinburgh has already won such a high place in the affection of the country, and has already proved himself such a great help to the Queen, as undoubtedly to merit a place in this line of potential Regents.
It is difficult, and indeed profoundly distasteful, to look at what the Queen,


in her Gracious Message, termed the uncertainties of human life, but, having done so, I am sure we feel fortunate in being able to say without reservation that, if we should be deprived of our Queen, no one could be more fitted to exercise the Royal functions on behalf of a young Sovereign than that Sovereign's father.
May I now turn to the Clauses of the Bill? Clause 1 (1) of the Bill, amends Section 3 (1) of the Act of 1937, and provides for the Duke of Edinburgh being Regent if a child of himself and the Queen succeeds to the Throne under the age of 18. I might add that, with this alteration—if we pass this alteration into law—the Duke of Edinburgh as Regent would, under Section 5 (c) of the Act of 1937, have the guardianship of the young Sovereign's person. That is the first point to which I referred in my preliminary argument.
Clause 1 (2), provides for the Duke of Edinburgh being Regent in the event of the total incapacity of the Queen and there being neither child nor grandchild qualified to be Regent. In parenthesis again, may I explain that, in accordance with Section 5 (b) of the Act of 1937, the Duke of Edinburgh, as husband, would have the guardianship of the Queen's person? We all unite, Sir, in wishing the Queen a long reign, and in the fervent prayer that it will never be necessary to have recourse to the provisions of the Regency Act. But the uncertainties of human life, to which Her Majesty referred, are such that it is only prudent to make provision against contingencies which we hope will never happen.
Clause 1 (3) makes the Duke of Edinburgh subject to the disqualifications from becoming, or being, Regent set out in Section 3 (2) of the Act of 1937, which I have already mentioned to the House, and it applies to him the provisions made in the Act for the contingency that the Regent might be incapable by infirmity, or not available, to perform the Royal functions.
Clause 1 (4) amends Section 6 (4) of the Act of 1937, which enables the Regent to appoint Counsellors of State in the event of his illness or absence. The Amendment is necessary, because the existing provision would be inappropriate in the case of the Duke of Edinburgh. Unless there is an amendment, the

Regent's wife would be the first Counsellor of State, and the other four would be the four next after the Duke in the line of succession to the Throne.
I now come to Clause 2 of the Bill. Unless the Act of 1937 were further amended, the Regent would remain Regent, in the event of the incapacity of the Queen, until the heir to the Throne attained the age of 21. As the heir to the Throne, if he became Sovereign under the age of 18, would assume the Royal functions at that age, it seems right and proper that provision should be made so that, at the same age of 18, he should also be empowered to perform those same functions as Regent. Clause 2 carries this proposal into effect, and under it the heir to the Throne would, in the event of the Sovereign's incapacity, become Regent at 18.
I pause for one moment to remind the House that the Queen is Queen, not only of the United Kingdom, but also of her other Realms and Territories, and the Regency is, therefore, a matter of interest far beyond the United Kingdom. The opportunity was taken, during the presence in London for the Coronation of the Prime Ministers of Her Majesty's other Governments, to discuss with them the proposal that the United Kingdom legislation relating to the Regency should be amended to deal with the points which I have mentioned, and I am glad to inform the House that all agreed with the proposal which the Bill contains.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Assuming that the Sovereign became incapable of ruling and that there were no child heir of the Sovereign, and no likelihood of a child heir in the future, does it follow from that Clause that the Duke of Edinburgh would nevertheless become Regent?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That follows from Clause 1 (2). If there were no children and Her Majesty were incapacitated within the terms of the 1937 Act, so as to be unable to perform her functions, then the Duke would become Regent. Is that the point the hon. and learned Gentleman had in mind?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: May I put this point to the right hon. and learned Gentleman? Where does the principle that he was enunciating about the effect of the 1937 Act come in?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: What I was saying about the 1937 Act was that, while I sympathise with an attempt to lay down general principles, I do not think that the general principles which were attempted to be laid down fit the circumstances of today, and I have indicated why. I think it is clear—and I gather that, broadly, the House is with me on the point—that in the case when there is a child, Regency, guardianship and paternal influence should be the same.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: rose—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to continue? This is a point which requires clear explanation. If there were no child and Her Majesty was incapacitated, then we should all hope and pray that the incapacity would cease. In those circumstances, I ask the House to consider that it would be much better for Her Majesty to contemplate returning to the exercise of functions discharged by her husband. The hon. and learned Gentleman was suggesting that I am departing from the 1937 Act. I tried to explain that, with the best will in the world—and I voted for the Act myself, as did, I think, a number of us here today—we cannot foresee everything, and, now that we are faced with new circumstances, let us examine the circumstances and do what we think is best.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: rose—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to allow me to get on.

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be against the wishes of the House if we were now to get involved in points which are more appropriate to the Committee stage. I think the points which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised are such points. This is, after all, the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I only wanted to make one point clear, and that is that I am not against the Bill in the present circumstances. What I was endeavouring to do was to draw attention to this possible contingency in order that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might consider whether some provision ought not to be made to meet it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think we have dealt with the contingencies. If there are any further contingencies, of course I respectfully agree, Mr. Speaker, that there is the Committee stage and, if necessary, they can be considered then. I have put the contingencies which are provided for by this Bill, and I hope the House will think that I have tried to deal reasonably, fairly and sympathetically with them.
I was coming to Clause 3, which deals with a different matter—namely, the Counsellors of State. As the House is aware, the Counsellors of State exist so that the Sovereign may delegate to them, by Letters Patent, such of the Royal functions as are specified in that document—that is, in the Letters Patent—for the period of an illness or absence from the United Kingdom—that is, an illness or absence which does not amount to incapacity or non-availability. The House will recall that this power was exercised by His late Majesty on a number of occasions, including his visit to South Africa and the period of his serious illness in the autumn of 1951. The Counsellors of State are defined in Section 6 of the Act of 1937 as
… the wife or husband of the Sovereign … and the four persons who, excluding any persons disqualified … from becoming Regent, are next in the line of succession to the Crown.
Perhaps I may indicate to the House, in passing, that
excluding any persons disqualified … from becoming Regent
involves the necessity of being of full age. During the last reign, in accordance with these provisions, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother served as a Counsellor of State on several occasions.
We would, I am sure, feel that it would be most unfortunate that the Queen Mother's long experience and wisdom should not be available to support those members of the Royal Family who would become Counsellors of State during, for example, the Queen's forthcoming tour. Accordingly, Clause 3 provides that Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother shall be added to the persons to be Counsellors of State who would exercise the Royal functions during the Queen's absence from the United Kingdom or the partial incapacity of the Sovereign. She is an addition to the five persons—the Consort


of the Sovereign and the four qualified persons next in the line of succession—who, under existing law, are the Counsellors of State.
I think that Clause 4 (2) is self-explanatory. The words in subsection (2, A) of Section 6 of the Regency Act, 1937, will have become unnecessary because Clause 2 of the Bill provides that the heir apparent or heir presumptive shall be capable of being Regent at the age of 18 years. The special provision contained in the Regency Act, 1943, which provided for the heir apparent being a Counsellor of State at the age of 18, is now, therefore, superfluous.
I have tried to explain the provisions of the Bill. If there are any difficulties, perhaps the House will be good enough to let me speak again and endeavour to clarify them. I put this Bill before the House as a simple and straightforward Measure to which, I am sure, the House will give a speedy and unopposed passage.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: I rise to express our support for this Measure which the Home Secretary has explained with his usual lucidity. It is quite clear that there is no question of exclusion here. If Princess Margaret should be Regent, she would be well qualified to perform that service. We have also, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, in the Duke of Edinburgh the natural guardian of the children and, I think, the natural Regent if such misfortune should occur as the death of Her Majesty. I think, too, that the provision for Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother being added to the Counsellors of State is altogether right.
Therefore, I support this Measure, but it seems a little curious that in the discussions on the 1937 Act—and I have looked them up—there is only one faint allusion to the possibility that the surviving wife or husband of the Monarch should be made Regent. It seems the more curious in that—as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says—there is ample precedent for it. The Prince Consort was named as Regent.
I wonder why this provision was not made? The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that one cannot have

everything, but at that time we had an extremely learned lawyer as Home Secretary, in Lord Simon. Looking at this question historically, I wondered whether there was any reason for it. Looking back into remote history one can see that Edward IV would have been very wise, in considering a Regency Bill, to have nominated Elizabeth Woodville and not Richard III as Regent. On the other hand, I can understand a certain doubt, if this had occurred in the reign of Queen Anne, about making Prince George of Denmark the Regent.
These things are really matters of speculation, and I cannot quite see why, if we were then departing from the ad hoc Regency Bill and trying to make something which would apply all the way, we did not contemplate the possibility that the best Regent would be the survivor of the Monarch of the day—the Consort, whether husband or wife.
I think that we are now acting very sensibly. It is perhaps best, on the whole, not to think that we can lay down these things for all time. That should be the lesson. When these Regency matters arise, it is better to deal with them on the facts of the day. I hope that this Bill will pass into law. I have looked at it, as have my hon. Friends who are legally qualified. It seems to me that the drafting is all right, I think it carries out the purpose, and I shall therefore support it.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: I rise to support this Bill and to express concurrence with what has been said by the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Should the need for a Regency unfortunately arise, it is natural, it is right, and it is proper that the Guardian and Regent should be His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. We are fortunate among nations in our Royal Family. His Royal Highness has won the admiration of all by his fine character, his ability, his manliness, his tireless energy and, above all, his high sense of duty.
With regard to the Queen Mother, one need only add that there is no one who stands so high in the confidence and affection of the people.

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: I also rise to support this Bill and, like the other right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, I am quite sure that what we are proposing to do in this case is the right thing. Happily, it is 400 years since there was a minor on the Throne of this country, and I profoundly hope that the contingency for which we are providing will never take place.
I should like to say a word on the general principle following on what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said. In 1937, when the Regency Bill was going through the House, I had some doubts on this matter and I expressed them. I raised with the Home Secretary—who was then Sir John Simon and is now Lord Simon—the question whether the possible widower of a Queen ought not to be considered particularly for the guardianship of the children, and therefore, I thought, also perhaps for the Regency. Lord Simon said that the matter had been very carefully thought out, the contingency had been looked into, and they had decided against it. As one naturally does on these occasions, I left the matter there.
I have thought about it since, and I have come to the conclusion that in 1937 we made a mistake in trying to lay down a principle. I have been studying the history of the Regency a little, and I find that it is quite an innovation to suggest that the next heir to the Crown should necessarily be the Regent, or would normally have a right to be the Regent. If one goes back through history, one finds that, as early as the reign of Edward III, Parliament determined the provision for the King's minority, and that has happened on numerous occasions since.
I should have thought, therefore, that it was a pity that in 1937 we laid down this principle, and I am a little sorry that the 1937 Act is not now being repealed rather than amended. Anyone who takes an interest in this matter would do well to read the speeches in the debate in the autumn of 1788, when there was a great controversy between Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt as to the Regency, in the then unfortunate circumstances of the King's illness. Although Mr. Fox was a Whig

and Mr. Pitt a Tory, Mr. Pitt laid down quite clearly, and eventually convinced the House without any doubt, that the Prince of Wales had no inherent right to become Regent.
The arguments are very well set out there, and all the precedents are examined, and the House would perhaps be wise to consider at some time, whether we had better not revert to the principle of ad hoc arrangements. For this occasion I am quite certain that what is proposed to be done is the right thing and I therefore support the Bill.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I think this is the first time that I have agreed with what the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) has said, and I do not say that discourteously. In referring to the decision in 1937, I think that we should do justice to the then hon. Member for Fife, West and the then hon. Member for Gorbals. The decision in 1937, which we now all deplore, was taken by a majority of 305 to 1.

Mr. Assheton: Both those hon. Members frequently made valuable contributions to the House. I am not surprised to hear that they did so on that occasion.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I want to raise one point of principle about which I am somewhat concerned with regard to this Bill, namely, its continuation of Section 6 of the Regency Act of 1937, which provides for the appointment of Counsellors of State during the absence of the Queen. I am in favour of Clause 3 of this Bill, by which the Queen Mother would become one of the Counsellors of State, if this system is continued, but I am very doubtful whether the system of appointing Counsellors of State during the absence of the Queen ought to be continued.
I think it is out of accord with the present nature of the Commonwealth, because it makes a distinction between the United Kingdom and other countries in the Commonwealth in respect of their relationship to the Crown. All the other Commonwealth countries have Governors-General when the Queen is absent from them. Only this country has Counsellors of State. This seems to me to be in conflict with the basic principle about which the Home Secretary


reminded us, namely, that the Queen is equal Queen of all her Realms.
We must draw the conclusions from that principle, because it means that each Realm of the Queen is, or ought to be, in exactly equal relationship to the Crown. In that case there should be identical forms to express that relationship. If there are different forms, as in this case, it suggests that there is a difference between one of the Queen's Realms and another in their relationship to the Crown. It follows that these forms for representing the Queen during her absence should be identical throughout all her Realms.
I suggest that we should bring up to date and alter our notion of what is meant by the very concept of the Queen's absence. We must now accept that when the Queen is in Australia she is absent from the United Kingdom in exactly the same way as, when she is in the United Kingdom, she is absent from Australia. She is absent from the Realm which she is not in, but she is not absent from the United Kingdom in a different way from that in which she is absent from Australia when she is not there.
There should be the same representation of monarchy in this country during the Queen's absence as there is in the other Realms in the Commonwealth, and, as in all those it is done by the appointment by Her Majesty of a Governor-General, on the advice of her Ministers, so it should be done in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I regret very much that this Bill does not provide any authority to the Queen to appoint a Governor-General to represent her when she is absent from this one of her Realms.
Doubtless, it would mean the appointment of the senior of those entitled to be Counsellors of State. That might be provided, if it were so wished, in the law. There would be then the equalisation between ourselves and the other Realms of the Queen in the Commonwealth in this very important matter, which is a symbolic matter admittedly but a very important matter, which sets forth the relationship of the various Realms of the Queen to the Queen.
I should like now to turn to two arguments which may be made against this point, possibly by the Home Secretary, who, I hope, will deal with it in his

reply. One is the argument from tradition, particularly where it concerns the Monarchy. However, here we are concerned with something that is quite recent and not at all traditional. As far as my researches go, the first occasion on which Counsellors of State were appointed was when the late King George V was ill in 1928 and again in 1936, when it was done by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, because there was no statute at that time to enable him to appoint Counsellors of State. The first statutory precedent which I can find is the Act of 1937.
In other words, we have only 16 years' sanction behind this particular tradition, if, indeed, one can call something 16 years old in connection with the Crown a tradition at all, and I think it would be a very great pity if we were to allow a quite recent practice to harden into a tradition. It is a practice, incidentally, which is not a very convenient one, because it is much more awkward to have to collect four signatures—I think it is—for certain State papers instead of one. In certain circumstances the need to have four signatures might involve delays which could be serious, whereas if we were to have a single Governor-General, as in other Realms of the Queen, there would need to be only one signature.
The other objection that may be made is that there has been no suggestion by any Commonwealth country that this change should be made. It may very well be so. I am no longer in a position to know about that, but I should say that it is wrong that in a matter of this sort we should always have to wait for such a change until there is pressure put upon us to make it, and when it looks as though the change is made by us somewhat reluctantly. The United Kingdom ought to take the lead in bringing these outward forms, in connection with the Crown, in relation with the reality of the Commonwealth today.
If we had made changes in the past some of the symbols of Commonwealth unity might be accepted more widely today than they are. The Crown is the most important symbol of the unity of the Commonwealth. There is a danger which arises out of an anomaly, indeed, a defect, in the structure of our Commonwealth relations. This defect is that the symbols of Commonwealth unity are, for historical reasons, also the national


symbols of this country, of the United Kingdom, like the Union Jack, and so forth. They have been simultaneously national symbols expressing our own nationhood and also symbols expressing the unity of the Commonwealth. That was all right when the Commonwealth was predominantly British, and when the United Kingdom was the only full nation in it, but now full nations are arising—full, developing nations desiring to have symbols expressing their own nationhood. So they are turning against symbols of the Commonwealth, not because they are symbols of the Commonwealth but because they are symbols of our national being. They want different ones of their own. The development of different flags all over the Commonwealth is one example. This applies not only to Ceylon, but to Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.
We have to be very careful, even in symbolic matters of this sort, against this danger developing in relation to the Crown. There must be no hint at all that the Crown is related to the United Kingdom in a special way in which it is not related to all the other Realms of the Queen in the Commonwealth. In other words, we have to recognise the equal property in the Queen and the Crown of all her Realms, and it would be in accord with this principle if a Governor-General were to be appointed in this country in the Queen's absence.
The link of the Crown is of very great importance, and that is why matters of this sort, which may be thought to be academic, are of very great importance, as anyone who has been in the Commonwealth knows. The Commonwealth today consists of Realms and Republics. There may be two Republics; the Crown in relationship to both the Republics and to the Realms also. It is the only link that binds them all together, Realms and Republics, and only if the Crown is really the Commonwealth Crown, separated from being in any special sense the Crown of any one country in the Commonwealth, can the Queen play her pre-eminent rôle as the one unifying factor in the Commonwealth; because as Head of the Commonwealth she is the link who binds the Republics and Realms together as well

as being herself, of course, Queen of each of her Realms.
I think it is very wrong to argue, as some people do, that when a country in the Commonwealth becomes a Republic the links with the Crown are thereby snapped, annihilated, or weakened so far as to make them non-existent. It is more important that we should emphasise all the links we can between the Crown as the head of the Commonwealth and the Republics. It was very fine, I thought, to see Mr. Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, in the Abbey at the Coronation amongst the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth, without any distinction between him and the other Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth. That was a proof and demonstration of the reality that the Crown is the link, and of the link which the Crown can be in this Commonwealth consisting of both Realms and Republics.
Therefore, I am very sorry that this opportunity has been missed. I hope that the Secretary of State, in reply, will be able to tell us that at any rate he will consider making a change in this Bill, perhaps in another place where there may be time, in this respect—a change, at any rate, to authorise the Queen to do this as an alternative means, so that in the future we have these two sorts of powers. I have no doubt that if this is done the appointment of a Governor-General will do a great deal to strengthen and raise the dignity of the Crown.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Walter Elliot: The voice of England has been heard and the voice of Wales, and it is not, perhaps, inappropriate that a voice from Scotland should also be heard upon this occasion. I have myself had the great honour of being Secretary of State and having charge of the Great Seal of Scotland in that capacity, and I can say that these Measures are watched with very close attention in the Northern Kingdom, and I think that today's debate will be followed very closely there.
For that reason, I think we should, perhaps, hesitate before following up the interesting and thoughtful remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), because this Kingdom, the United Kingdom, is in a very special position. It has not simply, like the other Realms, a single Crown. It is the union of two Crowns,


and any suggestion of a single Governor-General would need to be considered very carefully in that connection. I mention this only as indicating what delicate paths we tread if we depart from the suggestion which is brought forward in the present Bill.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I see the point of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I cannot understand how Counsellors of State can better represent a dual Crown than can a single person. I do not follow that part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Elliot: I should have thought that the precedent of placing this vital office in commission was one which was well understood, and that the concentration of authority in a single figure, which might be just as right and proper in the case of the actual tenant of the office, might not be so advisable when the deputy was taking charge for the time being. However, as I say, I do not wish to stress that point, because the right hon. Gentleman has only just thrown it out. It is reasonable that matters like this should be considered, but they should be considered with very great caution indeed, because those of us from the Northern Kingdom know very well how delicate these matters are and how jealously the Northern Kingdom watches her position in this matter.
I would say only that I think that the Measure which has been brought forward is one which will gain general acceptance in all parts of the House and in all pans of the United Kingdom. I am sure that if there is one part more than another which will be acceptable, at any rate in the Northern Kingdom, it is that which provides for the position of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. We all know that both her experience and her wisdom have been of the very greatest advantage in the past, and that that advantage is by no means exhausted, and if occasion arises it will be of the very greatest service both to the Crown and to the United Kingdom, and indeed to the Commonwealth, should any emergencies arise which call for the appointment of Counsellors of State.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) mentioned the feel-

ings of Scotland in this connection, and I should like to homologate what he has said. I agree with him also in his attitude towards the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). I rather expected my right hon. Friend to put this point, because it follows from what he said in our debate on the Royal Titles Act. I, like the right hon. Gentleman, am still not quite convinced it is a sound point. I am inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, undervalues the Commonwealth aspect of my right hon. Friend's point, but it may be, perhaps, that my right hon. Friend overvalues the complete similarity between the other nations and ourselves.
I want to make just two points, and one of them follows on what the Home Secretary said in opening the debate. I was a little disquieted to find that we were going back to the method we used before the 1937 Act. Sir John Simon, now Viscount Simon, was very specific in explaining that that Act was intended to be a permanent provision. I am not convinced by the arguments which have been used against permanent legislation.
It is not possible, says the right hon. and learned Gentleman, to foresee all contingencies, but the situation with which we are now dealing is a very normal situation in that it involves a parent surviving, and a normal situation in a country which allows both sexes to succeed to the Throne in that the parent concerned is the father. It seems to me that that is the kind of contingency which could well be provided for.
I am not convinced either by the reference which has been made to the good reasons that existed in 1937 for not extending further the permanent provisions. If my recollection of reading that debate serves me aright, there was a general statement about the importance and goodness of those reasons made then, and then, as now, there was no clear indication what those reasons were. I should be interested if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would develop that point a little further.
The making of more extended permanent provision does not, in any case, exclude the possibility of ad hoc legislation if we find that the permanent provisions do not actually cover the situation which has arisen. It seems to me, therefore,


that it is by no means impracticable to make fairly comprehensive permanent provision always with the possibility of ad hoc legislation, but reducing that possibility so far as possible.
I think it should be reduced, in so far as there is a certain element, or so it seems to me, of casualness in dealing with a question like this by ad hoc legislation. Our history, so far as the practice of the monarchy has been in the past, has not always been a happy one, and it is partly for that reason, I imagine, that the ad hoc practice has grown up. That situation no longer exists, and we do not expect it to exist; and it seems to me that the reasons for the growth of the practice of ad hoc legislation applying to the past should now not concern the future.
The other point which I want to make is partly in emphasis of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick said. This is the first Regency Bill in a completely new situation so far as the relations between the Crown and the Commonwealth are concerned. I should have thought that the Commonwealth Relations Office would have been represented here and might have given us its views on the matter. This is the first Regency Bill under the condition of what has been called the divisibility of the Crown, a principle which has been implicitly accepted by the Government. It is the first Regency Bill in which we deal, with the new conception of "Head of the Commonwealth," and it seems to me that we might have expected a little more information, either from the right hon. and learned Gentleman or from his colleague, about the relationship between this Measure and the Dominions.
I think that the constitutional changes which are taking place in the nature of the Monarchy, and which, of course, have taken place continuously throughout our history, are working in such a way that in a constitutional sense, and in a purely constitutional sense, the Monarchy in the individual nations of the Commonwealth, including this nation, is becoming less important.
It is less and less the centre of decision and more and more the centre referred to in decisions; but so far as the Commonwealth as a whole is concerned it may be that the Monarchy is becoming

more and more important, and, therefore, I think, while I do not agree completely with the specific point which my right hon. Friend raised, that a great deal of what he said in support of his case needs more attention from the Government.
I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for instance, to be specific on one point. I should like him to clear up the matter of the consultations that took place before the decision concerning this Bill was made. In his statement of 4th November, I think he mentioned consultations with the nations "concerned." I wonder if that excluded or included India? And I think that, generally speaking, the kind of consideration that is involved in that particular question would be the kind of consideration on which the House might reasonably be entitled to expect rather more information.
We have now the responsibility of the Monarchy not primarily as a national possession, but we have responsibility in respect of the other nations of the Commonwealth as, perhaps, the leading one of those nations, to deal with the new conception of the place of the Monarchy in the Commonwealth. I think that perhaps we need rather more system, rather more care and rather more forethought about the situation of the Monarchy in relation to the other nations in the Commonwealth than we have sometimes in the past given to it.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: It is traditional and appropriate that the earlier contributions made to this debate should have come from Privy Councillors; but that, I take it, does not mean that private Members of Parliament who feel under an obligation to put views on this subject are not entitled to do so. At the same time, I fully realise that anyone who is a private Member of Parliament, and who addresses himself to a matter touching Her Majesty's Prerogative, and more particularly to some question of Her Majesty's representation or succession, must make certain that his zeal for the stability and welfare of the Crown does not outstrip his discretion.
Better men than I have suffered from the displeasure of Sovereigns in earlier times for venturing on such a subject. There were those, like the one-time hon.


Member for Barnstaple, who spent years of their Parliamentary careers in the Tower of London, and who made clear that the offence which their words caused sprang from defects of expression and not from deficiencies in loyal sentiment. They, like the men who occupy their places in this honourable House today, were concerned only to strengthen the institution of the Monarchy in the present and preserve its continuity in the future. I hope therefore, that Mr. Speaker, who is entrusted with the task of ensuring that Her Majesty places a favourable construction upon any words spoken in this House, will protect me from the consequences of my lack of eloquence and the inexperience I have in these high matters.
I regret that Her Majesty's Ministers, when introducing this Bill, have not taken the opportunity of clarifying and amending the Act of 1937 in respect of the provisions contained in it for the appointment of a Council of State during the absence of the Queen. Here I should like to apply my remarks, following up those made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) to Section 6 (1) of the 1937 Act, which says that the Sovereign may during the period of Her Majesty's absence, appoint a Council of State—the significance of the word "may" being, I assume, not that there is an alternative to such an arrangement, but that during short visits abroad—for instance, State visits to the neighbouring countries on the Continent—no delegation of powers would be necessary.
The Council of State is a cumbrous and unsatisfactory innovation in the Constitution of the United Kingdom. Historically it is an expedient used when the Sovereign or his advisers felt that the position of the former might be undermined if the powers of the Crown were delegated to an individual. When King George I wished to make his first visit to Hanover after his accession, he was advised by his Ministers that it was contrary to precedent to join other persons with George Prince of Wales in the exercise of the Royal powers. The relations between father and son in those days were not cordial, and the King therefore took the alternative open to him. Although he refused to make the Prince of Wales Regent, he appointed him Guardian of the Realm and Lieutenant.
There are earlier precedents in our constitutional history. King Henry V, when he embarked for the great campaign of Agincourt, made his second brother, the Duke of Bedford, Lieutenant or Custos of England. It was the Duke, in this capacity, who summoned the Parliament of 1415. Earlier still, King Edward III had appointed Edward the Black Prince Lieutenant of the Realm while he, the King, was absent on the Continent.
During the reign of King George II—and I would point out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) that this took place after the Act of Union—the absences of the Sovereign were frequent. On four occasions the wise and capable Queen Caroline was made Custos or Guardian of the Realm, and it is recorded that those were the only occasions when the absence of the Monarch did not cause difficulty for the Government of the day. During all his later absences a Council of State was appointed. The reason for this was that, as in the previous reign, the relations between father and son were not cordial. The King used the expedient of the Council of State to exclude Frederick Prince of Wales from Royal responsibilities.
I submit, therefore, that the appointment of a single individual as Custos or Lieutenant of the Realm, or Governor-General, or Warden, or whatever may be the term, has powerful historic precedents, far beyond even those which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick has quoted; whereas the appointment or the use of a Council of State derives from unhappy and even questionable incidents in the long evolution of the institution of the British Monarchy.
It is true that it is impossible for us to have all the foresight necessary to cater for all the changes which may take place in human life and in the course of the history of our country over the years ahead; but I think it will be agreed that it is our duty at the present time to show as much foresight as is possible in the interests of the preservation of the dignity and integrity of the institution of the Monarchy.
I would advance these four arguments. In the first place, a Council of State can, under the 1937 Act, dissolve Parliament on the express instruction of the Sovereign; but I think it doubtful, con-


stitutionally, whether it can summon a new Parliament or accept the resignation of a Prime Minister or entrust a successor with that office unless, of course, this is specifically mentioned in the Letters Patent which are issued appointing the Council of State. I should think it unlikely that specific mention of those powers would normally be made.
The United Kingdom has no monopoly of the presence and services of the Monarch in the present state of the Commonwealth. We hope she will be spared to travel frequently abroad to other Commonwealth countries and will have prolonged absences from the United Kingdom. I submit that it would be greatly to the inconvenience of the Sovereign and her Governments overseas if any sudden political crisis were to disrupt all the careful and costly preparations needed for a Royal tour. In my view, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to prevent this from happening, and I feel that this Bill fails to do so. On the other hand, as I have shown from the precedent of 1415, a Lieutenant of the Realm—in that case the younger brother of the King, the Duke of Bedford—did possess the constitutional powers to summon a new Parliament, and therefore, in its present context, presumably would be able to confer the office of Prime Minister upon whomever was selected.
My second argument—and here, I think, I am borne out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick—is that all those Ministers whose duty it is to wait upon the Sovereign, and take her pleasure on matters relating specifically to the interests and duties of the Crown, will, I am sure, bear out the fact that there are great inconveniences and delay ensuing from the fact that those powers are shared in the hands of four, five or more people. There must be a tendency among Ministers in such circumstances to omit proper consultation, and I submit to the House that one inevitable consequence of that is injury to the interests of the Crown.
Thirdly, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick has said, a Council of State is not an expedient common to other countries of the Commonwealth. In the absence of a

Governor-General, or in the interval between the end of the appointment of one Governor-General and the arrival of another, it is common practice to appoint the Lord Chief Justice, or some other equivalent dignitary, to act in his place. I would say to the House—and this is contrary to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove—that that practice in Commonwealth countries is far more in accordance with the tradition of the British Constitution than is this modern innovation of a Council of State.

Mr. Elliot: My hon. Friend is putting forward an interesting argument, but I warn him that in the different legal systems of Scotland and England he would find an immediate and great difficulty in the course which he suggests.

Mr. Alport: I have pointed out that no difficulty was found on at any rate four occasions which I have taken at random from history, when precisely the same situation arose in the past and when a Custos or Lieutenant of the Realm was appointed.

Mr. Elliot: I have perhaps not made myself clear. I was referring to the suggestion of using the Lord Chief Justice.

Mr. Alport: I had no intention of doing that. I was merely saying that an individual, using the Lord Chief Justice as an example, was usually appointed in the case of Commonwealth countries.
My fourth point is an intimate matter on which I touch with the greatest respect. We should look ahead to the time when the Duke of Cornwall reaches manhood. We anticipate a long and happy reign for Her Majesty. That means that Prince Charles will, if God spares him, be heir apparent for a very long period. If Her Majesty lives as long as Queen Victoria, Prince Charles will be heir apparent for 42 years after reaching his majority at the age of 18—that is to say, he would be 60 years of age on his accession. During these years—the best of his life—he will be hedged around by inevitable restrictions which prevent him from undertaking full responsibility; he will have many heavy duties, but no responsibility.
That is an intensely difficult and almost unnatural rôle, which has led to


many difficulties in the past. The position of King Edward VII, during the latter years of the reign of Queen Victoria, is one example. The tragedy, in some respects, of King Edward VIII is, perhaps, another example. If those instances are taken from our own time, we can look further back into history and to the relationship between King George I and King George II, between King George II and Frederick, Prince of Wales, and, still further back, to the relationship between King Henry IV and King Henry V. It seems to me, therefore, that these difficulties in the past, though we pray they may never happen again, are something which we should do our best, as far as it is humanly possible, to prevent in the future.
What more splendid training in the art of kingship could there be for a young prince than to act as his mother's deputy during her absences overseas? It would at the same time take off the shoulders of the Queen some of the grievously heavy burdens which she is now called upon, and will continue to be called upon, to sustain.
In the meantime, Her Majesty has experienced members of the Royal Family available for the duties. There is, in particular, as the House knows and would recognise quickly enough, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. Why should not her matchless knowledge of the duties and responsibilities of Royal power be used to assist the Queen in this way? And if the Queen Mother were to be called on to assume some great office of State, there are other members of the Royal Family fully capable of acting in her place. I therefore ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider very carefully the point which has been put before him by both sides of the House.
We are at the beginning of a new reign and one which holds out exceptional promise for the Commonwealth and for the United Kingdom, but one, too, in which the duties of the Sovereign will be very different and far more arduous than those which have been borne by any of her predecessors. We, in this, as I believe it, the most ancient of her Parliaments, supported by a long and continuing tradition, would be gravely at fault if we did not take every step within our power to assist Her Majesty in the faithful discharge of her duties.

4.46 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The Government, on this occasion, lay themselves open to two grounds of criticism in connection with this Bill. The first criticism relates to the tactics or methods which the Government have employed leading to the submission of the Bill to the House, and the second relates to the nature and terms of the Bill itself.
We have been made aware, from a variety of sources, not as the result of any statement by any right hon. Member to the House, that, privately, conversations of various kinds have been going on for many months past, almost since the beginning of the present reign, with Commonwealth Premiers. But the nature of those discussions has never been divulged to the House, although fairly factual reports have appeared from time to time in the Commonwealth Press and on one or two occasions Commonwealth Premiers have referred publicly to them. That means that throughout this period the House has been kept in a much less favourable position to understand or to appreciate what was going on than a number of people in other parts of the Commonwealth.
The Home Secretary said, in introducing the Bill, that the consent of all the Commonwealth Premiers had been obtained. I take it that when he makes that statement, he wishes us to understand that, for example, the Prime Ministers of India, Pakistan and Ceylon were consulted and told what was in the minds of Her Majesty's Ministers of the Crown and that they agreed to, or accepted, the proposals that were put to them.
It may, of course, be desirable that the consent of all the Commonwealth Premiers should have been obtained, as the Home Secretary has given us to believe, but there is one query which arises. When the House was discussing the 1937 Regency Bill, it was made quite clear that the 1937 Act did not require the endorsement of the Dominions and that the Governors-General in each of the Dominions already had powers to enable them to perform all the Royal functions, even during the incapacity of the Sovereign in this country. I take it that that is the position today with regard to the Bill and that it does not legally require the endorsement of any of the Dominions or countries of the Commonwealth, especially those where Governors-


General are still operating. A different problem, of course, arises in those parts of the Commonwealth where it looks as if the system of representation by means of Governors-General is on the verge of being terminated.
My complaint is the lack of information that has been given to the House. The Home Secretary did say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when acting Prime Minister, informed the House on 22nd July that amendments of the Regency Act, 1937, were to be introduced. The right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion:
It is the Government's intention to introduce a Bill before Her Majesty leaves on her Commonwealth tour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd, July, 1953; Vol. 518, c. 373.]
The point I should like to make is that I very much doubt whether the House would have been given even that snippet of information had I not addressed a Question to the acting Prime Minister then. That leads me to suppose that, but for the fact of this Question having been put down for answer on 22nd July, we should not have been told until the opening of the present Season of Parliament that the Government were proposing to do anything at all in the matter.
I should like to revert to what happened on 22nd July when I put this Question and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the first official declaration of the Government's intentions. When I raised the question the Chancellor made it quite clear that the delay had nothing at all to do with the matrimonial intentions of Princess Margaret or any other member of the Royal Family. I am quite sure that many people were glad to have that assurance.
It will be within the recollection of the House that on 9th July, 1952, when we were discussing the Civil List, a point that was very strongly stressed by hon. Members on all sides of the House was that the additional financial provision that we were proposing to make for Princess Margaret in the event of her marriage was so as to give her a much greater freedom of choice than might otherwise be the case.
The Home Secretary told us today that this Bill is not an exclusion Bill. It does not exclude anybody. I accept that he is right, and the primary object of the Bill is not to exclude Princess

Margaret but to move her one place down in the list of persons who may act as Regent. It may still be that the status and the future matrimonial intentions of Princess Margaret did not enter at all into the discussions that the Dominion Premiers had here. In that I am fortified by a statement made by Mr. Menzies.
In the only report that I have seen of that statement, which appeared in the "Daily Herald" on 24th July, two days after the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered my Question in the House, Mr. Menzies said:
The Commonwealth Premiers did not discuss Princess Margaret during their talks as reported in Britain.
That may be so, but I find it difficult to understand how it was possible to agree to the substitution of the Duke of Edinburgh as Regent in the place of Princess Margaret without some kind of discussion about the Royal Lady herself.
What struck me as particularly remarkable after the Question and answer in the House on 22nd July was the similarity of language and detailed accuracy in the Press reports of the actual provisions of this Regency Bill. Whatever organs of the Press are referred to about that time, this astonishing similarity of language and accuracy of detail about the Bill will be noted. I wonder whether that was a complete fluke or a lucky accident by the Press of this and other countries, or whether the authorities did not take belated steps to let the world know something of what they had been talking about for so many months, and what their intentions were.
That brings me to a typical example of Press comment. It is an editorial which appeared in "The Times" on 24th July last. The writer points out, quite rightly, that any action taken in connection with the Regency is a matter of the greatest constitutional importance, and then he goes on to say:
It is common knowledge that the need to amend the Regency Act, 1937, began to be discussed within the first month of the reign. That Act, though intended to lay down rules of permanent validity, was hurriedly drafted, and has several times been found, in practice, to be a misfit to situations unforeseen when it was shaped.
That indicates a state of affairs not within the knowledge of most hon. Members of this House. The Home Secretary did not take advantage of the opportunity today


to indicate the several occasions when the Act has been found, in practice, to be a misfit though that situation had arisen from time to time.
"The Times" went on to say that the arrangements under which Princess Margaret would become Regent would seem to be curious, for this very interesting and significant statement is made:
There is no reason to doubt that Princess Margaret feels likewise; indeed, Mr. Butler has as good as said that she does.
It is not for me to comment on the propriety of that expression of opinion, but in view of what the Home Secretary has disclosed to the House for the first time this afternoon, that Princess Margaret shares the desire that the Duke of Edinburgh should become Regent, it seems to me to indicate a remarkable degree of prescience on the part of the gentleman who wrote the leader in "The Times" that day.
The editorial went on to say that the reasonable order of succession to the Regency would be, first of all, the Duke of Cornwall when of full age and, then omitting Princess Anne, the Duke of Edinburgh. It added:
Princess Margaret, as third choice of the law, would be honourably placed in the list.
I am almost inclined to believe that "The Times" leader writer that day was their racing correspondent, among whose professional duties it is to place the first three a long time before the event occurs.
Underlying many of the speeches we have heard today there is a rather bland assumption of complete unanimity of opinion in this country as to the desirability of the Duke of Edinburgh being the Regent. I am not in a position to say—no one is—to what extent that assumption is valid, but it would be overstating the case if the Government or any hon. Member were to try to create the impression that there is complete unanimity throughout the country in this matter.
Let me refer to the editorial which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" in July of this year. Their leader writer wrote:
There will be many who feel that the custom embodied in the 1937 Act should not lightly be set aside. It seems to be more in the spirit of the traditions of the British Monarchy that the Regency should be kept in

the line of succession rather than pass to one who is not. The need for change is not obvious, although a minor change to include the Queen Mother among the Counsellors of State, who act during the Sovereign's absence from the country, will obviously be welcomed.
Last July the "Manchester Guardian" saw a complication in this proposal, which they got to know about long before we did, that the Duke of Edinburgh should take a closer and more detailed interest in the affairs of State—I do not think many of us would object to that because at present perhaps he has no right of access to all State papers. The "Manchester Guardian" then wondered whether the conception of a Victorian Prince Consort with near-regal influence, was being advanced or was likely to be advanced by the Government in the not too distant future.
It is perhaps relevant to remember that although we had the Regency Act of 1840, appointing Prince Albert as Regent, it was not until 1857 that he was made Prince Consort. I have referred to what the "Manchester Guardian" said. The "Daily Express" took the view that the decision of the Government to amend the Regency Act would be widely regretted. That was their statement of editorial policy on 23rd July last. They went on to say:
Many people will regret this change, even if Princess Margaret herself has consented to it. The Duke of Edinburgh would be the natural choice as guardian of his son, Prince Charles. But there is no reason why the State duties devolving on a Regent should not be separated from the tasks of guardianship.
I find it difficult to disagree fundamentally with that point of view because there is no absolutely essential reason, constitutional or otherwise, for requiring the Regency and the guardianship to be necessarily in one and the same pair of hands. The "Daily Express," no doubt representing a not inconsiderable majority of its readers, said that there were powerful arguments in favour of keeping the Regency within the present line of succession.
On an issue of this kind, as the newspaper to which I have referred pointed out, which concerns a Royal personage in the line of succession to the Throne, the nation as a whole is inevitably and widely interested, and this cannot be dismissed as a matter of idle curiosity or held to be an improper subject of public interest or comment. I could quote other examples


to indicate that there is by no means that degree of complete unanimity which perhaps some of the speeches to which we have listened today might lead to us believe.
There are one or two other matters of important constitutional significance to which I think attention should be directed. The best, and indeed the only, precedent for the action which the House is being asked to take today is the 1840 Regency Act, which is itself the only complete precedent that can be regarded as on all-fours with the present situation. There we had Queen and husband, for whom it was thought right and proper to make certain arrangements.
Bills of this kind are initiated by a Royal Message to this House. It is quite clear, and good constitutional practice to maintain, that although it is a Royal Message, in the same way as the speech from the Throne is the Queen's Speech, nevertheless the Royal Message and the various forms of communication which the Crown employs for communication with this House are suggested by the advice of the responsible Ministers of the Crown. Therefore, the Government must accept responsibility, and is open to criticism or challenge in relation to the terms of the Royal Message itself. Erskine May, at page 801, makes it quite clear that these several forms of communication are suggested by the advice of the responsible Ministers of the Crown.
It is of great interest, therefore, to see how different was the Royal Message of last week from the Royal Message which led to the 1840 Act. The latter was brief, and it will not take a long time to read, if I may be permitted to do so, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because it may not be easily or quickly available to hon. Members. The Royal Message of 1840 said this:
The uncertainty of human life and a deep sense of duty to my people, render it incumbent upon me to recommend to you to consider contingencies which may hereafter take place and to make such provision as will in any event secure the exercise of the Royal authority. I shall be prepared to concur with you in those measures which may appear best calculated to maintain unimpaired the power and dignity of the Crown and thereby to strengthen the securities which protect the rights and liberties of My people.
If we compare that message with the message received last week, it will be

noted that there are substantial differences, differences to which I think it is my duty to draw attention, because we are creating in matters of this kind important constitutional precedents.
In the first place, the Royal Message for which the Ministers of the Crown are responsible was of a much more mandatory character on this occasion than it has even been before; much more mandatory in character than the Royal Message leading to the 1937 Regency Act. We are told in specific words that several things ought to be done. So far as I have been able to ascertain, this is the first time in connection with arrangements for a Regency that this House of Parliament has been given specific and detailed statements indicating what it was that the House was expected to do. What I call the mandatory tinge which colours this last Royal Message indicates that, presumably, the proper constitutional practice was followed and the advice of the Prime Minister and, possibly, other Ministers was taken in connection with it.
I leave that point there, because having made it I hope that on future occasions, if it becomes necessary, it will be found more suitable to follow the precedent of 1840 and to make some reference to the
deep sense of duty to My people
and to the need to
strengthen the securities which protect the rights and liberties of My people.
It seems to me that it would be a pity if traditional words of that kind were omitted or not used on future occasions. I think that they are words which have significance and ought not to be discarded lightly in favour of the far more detailed kind of recommendation as a result of which we are discussing this Bill today.
Reference has been made to debates here in connection with the 1937 Act. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) pointed out that the only people in this House at that time who objected to the 1937 Act—to a permanent provision being made based on the hereditary principle—were Jimmy Maxton, George Buchanan and William Gallacher. They were treated with scorn at the time. I think they were wrong in the line that they took then,


as I think the Government are wrong now in accepting the line that those three gentlemen advocated then—that is, making ad hoc arrangements every time there was a new accession to the Throne.
The Home Secretary and other hon. Members have made quotations to show that it was clearly the intention of the House at that time to make permanent provision to get over these difficulties of canvassing personalities and deciding whether or not in the particular circumstances of a given situation A was better than B or C should be moved down one place so that D should take over. That was the whole object of the 1937 Act. Yet, 16 years after it was put on the Statute Book, the Government throw it back into the melting pot and we have immediately the old situation in which the House, whether it likes it or not, has to consider the relative merits of different Royal personages. That must be just as embarrassing to the Royal personages themselves as it is to hon. Members of this House who wish to raise and discuss these matters.
As the then Home Secretary pointed out in 1937, on the subject of identifying the Regent clearly and quickly without the necessity of legislating every time that there was a new accession:
The most natural person to choose is the person next in the line of succession, if he is of full age and resident in the country, who would succeed to the Throne. I think the House generally will approve of that provision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1937; Vol. 319, c. 1455.]
The House then approved of that proposition, and I still approve of it. Perhaps we shall have the spectacle of seeing people who voted for the absolutely opposite thing in 1937 voting for this Bill today.

Mr. J. McGovern: There is nothing new in that.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I do not think that the House has yet been given all the reasons for the change in the Regency arrangements. The reasons ought to be explained in full. It is certainly not right to brush the issue aside in a brief and almost perfunctory speech as if important matters were not involved. We now come to the precedent of 1840. This is the strongest precedent on which the case for these proposed arrangements is based.
Let us examine it for a moment. I have already said that the 1937 Act was passed, with the full approbation of all the major parties at the time, in order to do away with the need for special legislation every time that a situation arose which required Parliament to take action. But the situation today is not really analogous to that of 1840, for reasons which I can explain fairly briefly. In 1840, the next person of full age in succession to the Throne was Queen Victoria's uncle, the Duke of Cumberland, who had become King of Hanover in 1837. Queen Victoria was an only child.
If the Home Secretary is to say that 1840 should be the precedent by which we must be guided now, how can he be absolutely certain that if Queen Victoria had had a younger sister at that time. Prince Albert would necessarily have been made Regent none the less? So in that one important respect there is a considerable difference between the situation now and that in 1840.
The Duke of Cumberland who became King of Hanover was universally distrusted, although he was the actual Regent for a period from 1837 to 1840; and matters would not have been improved if the Regency had been given to Queen Victoria's next surviving uncle, the Duke of Sussex, who was regarded as an amiable eccentric and who protested in the debate in another place when the 1840 Act was being passed through that House.
Another point in connection with 1840 is that at that date there was not in existence any prior Act which gave the Regency to someone else. In other words, there was no question of Prince Albert displacing some other member of the Royal Family who had already been named as Regent in an existing Act of Parliament. That is an important consideration which seems to have been overlooked.
That confirms the argument which I am trying to advance, that the proposed change in the Regency arrangements should be agreed to only if very cogent reasons exist for the change to be carried out. I do not say that circumstances could not arise which would justify a complete reversal of whatever legislative arrangements we may have made in the past, but I do not know that there has been such a complete upheaval in the


situation as to justify the change which the Government now ask us to accept. Whether we like it or not, any change will cause some misunderstanding in some quarters, and I ask whether it is worth while to create such misunderstanding, and possibly distress, for the purpose of pushing this Bill through so rapidly without a full opportunity being given to the House of considering all the important implications involved.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick raised the idea of having a Governor-General in this country during the Queen's absence in other parts of the Commonwealth. He first advocated this when we were discussing the Royal Titles Bill in the House, and the idea found some measure of support among hon. Members opposite. With the Second Reading of this Bill today and the Committee stage tomorrow, how is it possible for the Home Secretary, with the best will in the world, to give serious consideration to that and other points which may be regarded as of material importance?
The House has been placed in a very difficult position as a result of the secrecy which has surrounded this whole affair for so many months past and also as a result of the rapid speed with which we are being asked to approve the Bill. In my opinion, the public are entitled to know about the negotiations which have been going on for at least the past 19 months. An attempt seems to have been made to hustle and stampede the House into a hasty acceptance of a pre-arranged plan, kept secret until the last possible moment.
We do not know what exactly is meant by the references which the Home Secretary has made to consultations with Commonwealth Premiers and to the consent of all members of the Royal Family. We do not know what members of the Royal Family he has consulted. The whole object of the 1937 Act, as I tried to make clear, and as other hon. Members have made clear, was to make it unnecessary to canvass personalities or to name one personality as more suitable than another whenever there was an accession to the Throne, yet that is precisely what the Government are now doing by deviating from the hereditary

principle, which is the most important principle upon which the Monarchy of this country is based.
Whatever they may say, the Government are deviating from the hereditary principle and to that extent are weakening the basis of the Monarchy in this country. The strength of the Monarchy depends upon the hereditary basis, because we do not have to argue whether a successor to the Throne is the most suitable person or not. That is made unnecessary by the rules of heredity. It may well be that there could be a younger brother or a younger son who would make a far better Monarch than—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is repeating his argument at some length. To me it is becoming rather tedious.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I consider it my duty, even if I am the only hon. Member to do so, to give expression even to what may be a tiny minority of opinion in this country, and I therefore make no apology for dealing with the matter at greater length than otherwise would be the case. After all, this situation can arise only once in very many years, and this is the only opportunity an hon. Member has of dealing with these problems.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not take any exception to the minority view at all, but I was taking exception to the tedious repetition of the same argument.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In those circumstances, I shall rapidly draw to a close.
It may well be that delicate personal issues are involved in the proposals now before us. If that is so, the Government must not seek to evade their responsibility for throwing the 1937 arrangements overboard. There are doubts about the wisdom which has been shown by the Government in this matter, and even if those doubts are entertained by only a minority, it is, nevertheless, right that they should be expressed here. Hon. Members should be treated as responsible representatives of an adult democracy, quite capable of reconciling the public interest of this country and of the Commonwealth with a human understanding of the position of the Monarchy.
We are all prepared to show every consideration for the feelings of the Royal


Family, even if we think that the Ministerial advice by which they must be guided, in this as in other matters, is not acceptable to all of us. In a matter of this kind it must be firmly understood and made quite clear that not only has Parliament a final right to decide, but that we cannot and are not prepared to abrogate that right.

5.28 p.m.

Mrs. Patricia Ford: I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but as I listened to the interesting suggestion by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) that the system of a Council of State should be replaced by the appointment of a Governor-General, it occurred to me that, in addition to the possible difficulties in relation to the Northern Kingdom of Scotland, there is a difficulty in relation to Northern Ireland.
This problem should not be overlooked. It is that we in Northern Ireland already have a Governor. It would be possible for confusion to arise if a Governor-General were appointed for the United Kingdom. It could seem strange for a Governor of Northern Ireland to take orders from a Governor-General of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I see this problem about Northern Ireland, but it exists in Australia, where there is a Governor-General and also a Governor of each State of Australia. They have no difficulty in reconciling the appointments and in understanding the relationship between the Governor and the Governor-General.

Mrs. Ford: I think it would make for a very difficult problem.
However, to revert to the Bill, we hope that this eventuality will never arise. In Northern Ireland we hold the Duke of Edinburgh in very great respect. Last July, we were very glad to be able to welcome Her Majesty and His Royal Highness when they paid a visit to that very loyal corner of the United Kingdom.
May I add, in conclusion, that in Northern Ireland we are completely devoted to Her Majesty the Queen Mother? I believe that this applies to all sections of the community, irrespective of politics or creed.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. J. McGovern: I have listened carefully to the statement of the Home Secretary and to the speeches of hon. Members. From my point of view, I object to the proposed change. I do not do that because of any opinions I have outside the question of a Monarchy or a republic. I have always been a republican, though I realise that this country does not accept my point of view.
During my recent visit to Australia I saw there an overwhelming amount of loyalty to the Crown which would have surprised anybody with similar views to my own. Five times a day, at every change of programme in every cinema, a portrait of the Queen is shown and the band play the National Anthem. Every person in the audience speedily rises to his or her feet. That loyalty seems to be the keynote throughout the length and breadth of the Commonwealth. I say that because I have republican views.
There is something in this Bill which has not been fully explained to the House. The Home Secretary has not given us exactly the reason why the change is being made. I agree that a father is the proper person to look after his son if the latter is, unfortunately, deprived of his mother. I hope that such a contingency will not arise, but if the heir apparent is deprived of his mother I think that, as this country places great reliance on the proper management of its affairs, the custodianship should pass to another member of the Royal Family.
I wonder what the reasons are when the Home Secretary says that Princess Margaret has been consulted and has agreed. I wonder whether that is the sort of answer they get behind the Iron Curtain when the prisoner comes before the court and agrees to all that is taking place and admits all he is charged with. A sensible reason should be given for the change. Has Princess Margaret really been consulted in a proper manner? Has she given her agreement, or is this being forced upon her?
It is all very well to speak, like the hon. Member for Down, North (Mrs. Ford), of the great and valued services of Prince Philip. It was nauseating to hear such talk about the Duke of Windsor. All the people who said all the nasty things about him later were those


who had said the good things in this House and resented anybody making any criticism. These people are all human beings. I say this about Prince Philip because he is not in line of succession. There is not only Princess Margaret, but there is the Duke of Gloucester and the Princess Royal. All these people seem to be passed over in favour of Prince Philip.
I do not say that Prince Philip is not rapidly establishing a place in the hearts of the people, but great care must be taken in this matter. I noticed the other day that he even entered into the field of controversy in one or two items about National Service, conscription, and so on. One can heap too many gifts, too many duties and too great a power on to the head of an individual, and his head may become a little turned.
I also want to ask the Home Secretary what will happen in the unfortunate event, which we hope will never happen, of the child being deprived of his mother, and the Prince marrying again completely outside the field of Royalty? Do we still continue to allow him to supervise and superintend both the education of the young Regent and also the work and duties with which he may be entrusted?
The Home Secretary made another comment that disturbed me. He said that in the event of anything unfortunate happening to Her Majesty the Queen which put her out of ordinary service, we, to a large extent, make the Duke in essence the King, because we give him the complete duties of the Crown. That is carrying the matter a bit far. Therefore, so far as the whole of the affair is concerned, I say that when we get the Royal Message here it looks to me to be coming from the Queen more as a form of command to this House that this has to be carried through, and that the Members are taken to be robots to carry out the will of the Monarchy whenever it is desired to make a change.
Changes are going on all the time according to the needs of the time, and also to modernise the whole institution in accordance with the will of the people and the needs of the country. I am not against that but, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) said, this has been

shrouded in a great amount of secrecy. There has been a great amount of private conference on the matter before Members were told what was going on. The command from the Queen and the secrecy applied to this by the Ministers, and the leaders of the Opposition as well, make it appear that it has been taken for granted that we shall all click our heels and spring to attention when somebody gives the command. I object when people assume that I am in their pocket and that they need only command for me to obey.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) suggested that the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, might have been trusted with the job. If I had to vote between the two, my vote would go to Prince Philip.

Mr. Alport: I merely used the precedent of the constitutions of the Commonwealth countries. I did not suggest the Lord Chief Justice, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) misunderstood what I said.

Mr. McGovern: I am very glad that I was mistaken. I hope that nobody in this House would suggest Lord Goddard.
I should like to know what happens if any of these contingencies arise and anything should happen to Her Majesty and her job should be entrusted to Prince Philip. What happens if he remarries outside Royalty? We must be very careful. We all know what happened to the Duke of Windsor, and so on. I am not asking that he should be entrusted with looking after the young Prince.
I suggest that an explanation is required about the passing over of Princess Margaret. In view of the controversy that went on around the Throne about Princess Margaret for some time, I wonder whether there is not a deeper objection to her being entrusted with the task instead of Prince Philip.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: The House will congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Col. Lipton) on his remarkable speech, during which he not only exhausted constitutional research but the House as well. Although this is an important Measure I think that some hon. Members have been overdoing it. For a moment one ought to consider what this Bill is really about, to consider its dimensions and its effect.
The first observation I should like to make is about the speech of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport). Does the hon. Member think that what he said was relevant to the immediate task of the Bill? If we were to adopt what he wants, we should at once work ourselves into the most amazing constitutional complications, and it would be entirely outside the scope of anything that the Bill seeks to do.
The object of the Bill as I see it is to meet the special circumstances that exist today. That principle, surely, is unobjectionable. It is unobjectionable for a very sound, safe constitutional reason, that if the circumstances were to change tomorrow Parliament would still have the power in its hands to deal with the question of Regency according to the changed circumstances. Therefore, subject to one observation, I regard Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill as wholly good.
I have raised the question of a special contingency because this is a Bill of contingency. It is said by the Home Secretary that it is not a Bill of exclusions, but it is a Bill of contingency. I was anxious to bring to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind a contingency which had occurred to me and which I thought he ought to consider, and which, I think, he will agree ought to be ventilated as far as the public are concerned. The public should be informed of all the relevant aspects of this matter as it relates to the special circumstances which the Bill seeks to provide.
This Bill is, of course, only an ad hoc Measure. Looking at the matter as broadly and carefully as one can, it seems to me to be the only method of dealing with the matters for which it seeks to provide; I cannot see any other way of doing it. If the circumstances should change, then, by the same ad hoc method, those changed circumstances can be dealt with.
I should like to make this comment on the appointment of the Duke of Edinburgh as Regent. In my opinion, he obviously must be the proper person. There is no question here of the matter of Prince Consort, and it is irrelevant in any case. The question here is the Regency, and nothing else. The Duke is, obviously, closely associated with the Queen in her Sovereignty. He is asso-

ciated with her in affairs of State, in Royal functions and Royal visits, and, no doubt, also in day to day events so far as the discharge of her Sovereign functions are concerned.
I should have thought it was manifest that the Duke of Edinburgh was the most likely personage to protect the Queen's interests and to protect the child's interests, if it became necessary, and, in addition, to protect the country's interests too; all three things are bound up together and are inseparable. Therefore, both as a husband and as a father, the Duke is the natural guardian and Regent in the present circumstances.
It is important, but not necessarily entirely relevant, that the Duke has endeared himself to the country. It makes him all the more acceptable in addition to the qualifications that I have mentioned. It is not merely, and it ought not merely to be, a matter of affection, but I think that as far as the Duke is concerned he has earned not only the trust but the respect of the country, and those are two very important elements in considering his appointment.
Another element that appeals to me and, I am sure, to the country—and, I think, it will appeal to the middle class and to the workers—is that the Duke has had a very special experience which particularly equips him for a democratic outlook. Therefore, no one could be better, if, unfortunately, it ever became necessary, to discharge the functions of Regent.
I am in absolute agreement with Clause 3. Not only is it right that the Queen Mother should be included as a Counsellor of State, but a great deal of experience which she has gathered would be lost if she were not so included. Therefore, on all these points, which are really the short point of substance, and not the wider point which is not relevant to the immediate circumstances, I heartily support the Bill.

5.46 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: With the leave of the House, I should like to deal with one or two points that have been raised, because I think that the right hon. and hon. Members who have raised them will expect me to do so. I am grateful for the support which the Bill has received from the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned


Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), who put very modestly his undoubted claims to be the only vocal Member of the House in 1937 who had seen the difficulty with which there is general agreement we ought to deal today. That support was implicit in all the speeches down to that of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), who indicated his support for the practical provisions of the Bill in no uncertain voice.
I should like to divide my remarks into two parts, to deal first with Regency points and then come to the Counsellors of State point, which is in a slightly different field. With regard to the Regency points, I think it would be right for me to say a word or two about the arguments that have been advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton).
The hon. and gallant Member suggested that this matter had been wrapped in secrecy. I thought that that point might not be absent from his remarks, and I have with me a note of what was said on the occasion that he asked a Question on 22nd July. Far be it from me to deprive him of the prescience and encomium of having asked the Question; he was perfectly entitled to do so. He asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister:
whether he has yet reached a decision on the introduction of legislation to amend the Regency Act, 1937.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied:
Amendment of the Regency Act, 1937, has been under consideration since shortly after the Queen's accession and was among the matters discussed with Commonwealth Prime Ministers when they were here for the Coronation. It is the Government's intention to introduce a Bill before Her Majesty leaves on her Commonwealth tour.
The Leader of the Opposition said:
May we assume that the contents of the proposed Bill will be agreeable to all the members of the Royal Family?
My right hon. Friend replied:
Yes, Sir. That is certainly the case, and I can give a definite answer to that in the affirmative.
Then the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton asked:
Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this amending legislation has

not been held up all this time by a desire on the part of some Ministers and their advisers to interfere with the wish of members of the Royal Family, in their private and personal affairs, to live their own lives?
My right hon. Friend replied:
Such a matter has never even required Ministerial advice, and it has never come before the Cabinet. I think I am voicing the opinion of all Members when I say that in a personal matter of this kind, the feelings of those concerned should be respected by everybody and the present deplorable speculation and gossip brought to an end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1953; Vol. 518, c. 373.]
At that there was "Hear, hear" generally in the House. In face of that, it cannot be said that the matter was kept in secret. It was quite clear that the Bill was to be introduced.
My right hon. Friend repelled with some justifiable warmth the suggestion of interference regarding Princess Margaret, which was implied in that matter. Therefore, I should like to make it clear, as the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has raised this point again, that there was consultation, that the matter was put clearly to Princess Margaret and that Princess Margaret had every chance to consider it and to authorise me to make that statement after full consideration. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants an assurance of that kind, and will not persist in an allegation which would give pain, apart from anything else, if I say that with the utmost clarity, directness and personal knowledge.

Mr. M. Follick: Did Princess Margaret herself ask for these phrases, or was she asked to make them?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I cannot go into initial matters.
I have dealt fully and clearly with the point which the hon. Member for Shettleston raised, and I wanted to make it absolutely certain. I know that he would not have put it forward if he had not felt some concern. I hope he will take it that there was a full and clear opportunity for consideration. After that, the authorisation was given to me to say what I have said today.

Mr. McGovern: I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said on both points, but I asked him for something other than that. What were the real reasons?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That was the next point. The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton asked me for that as well. I did try at that time, and I thought that the majority of the House understood and appreciated the reason which is the most compelling one in this matter. The full basis of the argument of the hon. and gallant Member is that there should be separation between Regency and guardianship, and he said so specifically. I said before, and I repeat, that I do not think that is a good thing.
Perhaps I might ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to use their imagination on this point. The hypothesis of the hon. and gallant Member is that there is a Regent who is carrying on the Royal functions and is, for that reason, living in certain places, performing certain duties and having a style of life necessary to do that. We cannot get away from it that that existence must be a separate one. Then we have a guardian who, again, has his establishment, his household, his position.
Take the last two years. Take the position where a future Sovereign is in that period from 16 to 18 years of age. Everyone wants him to receive training and gradual introduction and initiation into the duties which he has to assume at 18. Imagine that during that time there is this separation, which is the keynote of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument. It is easy to imagine, to put it at its lowest, that the future Sovereign will be deprived of that chance of instruction and initiation which is so important. I do not want to go through the happenings of the past which the historians among our listeners will have very much in mind, where there has been conflict between households and a character undermined by that position.
That is the answer. I have tried to crystalise it by saying that anyone who approaches this matter imaginatively will agree with me that the combination in one hand of Regency, guardianship and paternal influence is surely the best state of affairs. That is the best answer to the argument on its merits.
I believe that the hon. Member for Shettleston would be the last to resent a slight amount of mildly humorous recollection with regard to the other limb of the argument. The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton has said, "Lay

down your general principle. Set that out for the future and do not deviate from it." I can remember enjoying very much the speeches of hon. Gentlemen who used to sit on the Front Bench below the Gangway before the war, corresponding to the one where the hon. Member for Shettleston is sitting today, and which was occupied by the Independent Labour Party; and particularly of the hon. Gentleman who was a dear friend of all Members of the House, the late Mr. Maxton. There was Mr. Buchanan, who is still with us though otherwise employed, and Mr. Campbell Stephen. Of course, on our side we enjoyed the speeches better when their criticism was directed laterally than when it was directed at us.
After the hon. Member for Shettleston had spoken, I wanted to see what his hon. Friends had said in those days. Mr. Maxton's argument against the Bill was: "You are tying up the future." We are saying today that if we tie up the future we shall have to look at it again, and that was how I began my opening speech on the Bill. It is interesting to see that Mr. Buchanan's argument was that that method precluded that consideration of the position of the Monarchy which he thought it might be healthy for the House to make. True, the hon. Member for Shettleston was not there, but remembering his loyalty to his comrades at that time, as those who are now old-stagers can, I cannot believe that he had any great opposition at that time to the other three Members of his party. If the hon. Member is accusing us who take the other view of a volte face, we can say with the utmost good temper and good will: "You also are in the same galley."

Mr. McGovern: I was abroad in Sweden at the time, but I am in agreement with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it should not be hard and fast. All that is happening tonight is that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton is under the impression that the idea which he put forward is the correct one, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has now explained that it is not.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am much relieved. I confess that until this last intervention I believed, from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, that he was acting as


junior counsel to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton and putting forward his view; but as he has explained that he does not hold a hard-and-fast view, that leaves the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton in splendid isolation so far as the vocal expression is concerned.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not mind me referring to old days, because it is very pleasant to do so, especially when one can make, as I felt I could, some point out of it. But before I said that, I tried to deal, and I think the House understands that I did, with every serious argument on the merits of this matter, and I tried to do it again. I think that is the answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton.
I have quoted the whole of what was said on 22nd July because I think it made the position clear and expressed the almost universal opinion of the House against the circulating of rumours and suggestions of the kind which my right hon. Friend denied. But the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton, in marshalling his journalistic support, quoted, I think it was from a leader, from the "Manchester Guardian," saying that it was not the custom of our Constitution in the past to put forward a Bill of his kind.
With very great respect to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, Homer can nod, and even the "Manchester Guardian" can be wrong on historical matters. If it was my own poor knowledge of history which I was pitting against them, I would not be so sure, but the whole basis of Sir John Simon's argument in putting forward the Bill in 1937 was that the custom of the country was to bring in an ad hoc Bill, whereas the Government of the day thought that custom ought to stop and that instead there ought to be a general Bill.
We cannot have it both ways. Either Sir John Simon and his carefully marshalled facts were wrong, or the "Manchester Guardian" was wrong. I suggest that for once the "Manchester Guardian" was wrong.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman raised what I venture to submit is a very bad point with regard to the question of the Message. It is quite true, and of course

we accept it, that the Message is something which is done on advice. The responsibility is ours, and I hope that no one will think otherwise. I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not want to suggest anything else, but he thought that the form was wrong. The form used was that of the Message of 1937, which read:
These circumstances lead Me to recommend that you should take into your consideration the making of permanent provision.
It is a form which, with slight variance, has been used on many occasions before. I want to make it quite clear because, believe me, the Government had not the slightest intention of seeming to use a mandatory or dictatorial form. It will be remembered that what was asked was that we should take into consideration the expediency of amending the law. The Resolution which I moved said that the House would discuss the matter and then do what appeared to be expedient. Therefore, in my view, there was no substance in that point.
That is one side of the matter, and now that we have clarified the position of the hon. Member for Shettleston, the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton remains alone in that argument. I do not think that any evidence has been put forward—and none, in fact, exists—of secrecy or motives other than those put before the House.
The other point is one of great interest and great importance. It was raised by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and referred to the Counsellors of State. The right hon. Gentleman regretted that we had continued the existence of Counsellors of State, and he got some support from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport). The point I want to make clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester is, if I may say so with great respect, that he has got the position entirely wrong. He talked the whole time about a "Council of State."
There is no such thing as a Council of State. There are Counsellors spelt with an "s," but they have no corporate capacity. They are the qualified individuals who perform such Royal functions as are set out in the Letters Patent. Therefore, his whole argument against the existence of a corporate body seems to me to fall to the ground.
But that is not the whole matter, because there is the other argument which the right hon. Member for Smethwick adumbrated and which my hon. Friend, pro tanto, supported—the question whether should be a Governor-General, or something of that sort. Clearly, that is a very much more extended purpose than the obvious purpose of this Bill. I do not want to go into the argument in any great detail because I think that the spirit of so doing would be out of order, even though it were technically correct on Second Reading.
The right hon. Gentleman has raised a most important point, which I believe is in all our minds, as to the symbols of the Commonwealth and the unfortunate effect it would have if we seemed to be monopolising these symbols. There is also the other point that we ought on all occasions to be looking for not only greater but clearer and more obvious things that are shared by the Commonwealth as a whole.
I entirely sympathise with that point of view, but I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that the point is not an easy one. Actually, as he knows, the whole procedure that existed from 1688 to 1821 consisted of appointing Lords Justices. Lords Justices were appointed to exercise Royal functions in the Sovereign's absence. In 1845 the law officers advised that such appointments were not legally necessary. They said that improved means of communication and changed conditions made them unnecessary, and from 1821 no appointments of Lords Justices were made when the Sovereign visited the Continent.
There is slightly more antiquity than was suggested, because in 1911, when His late Majesty King George V went to India, Counsellors of State were appointed, and again in 1925 during the Mediterranean cruise after his illness.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Without statutory authority, I take it, because there was no statute?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The first statute was 1937.
But the position is that the Counsellors of State in this country, and the Governors-General acting in the Realms

of the Commonwealth, do provide a practical method of carrying on the Royal functions that are devolved. It was really part of the mistake which my hon. Friend made in having the concept of a Council of State, but it is not nearly so difficult to work, because it is prescribed in the Letters Patent how many Counsellors of State are necessary to perform any function and sign any document, and in fact, over the greater field of the work, two can act. There is not much difficulty there.
Therefore, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that everyone in the House, certainly the Government, believe that he has raised an interesting point. I promise that I shall certainly consider it myself, and my colleagues will also, but I do not think at the moment that it would be right so greatly to enlarge the field of this Bill by changing to the conception that he has in mind, especially when we have heard doubts expressed in this House. As he knows, it is a matter on which there would not only have to be consideration and discussion at home, but it would have to be very carefully discussed with all the Governments of the Commonwealth before anything could be done. But I hope that he will take it as sincere when I say that not only the Government, but the whole House, is grateful to him for having put this point before us. We will consider it in that spirit, but I cannot make any promise as to the Bill.
After all, as I said, the Bill is limited, and practical and straightforward. It makes no exclusion, but it does put the Duke of Edinburgh in this position in these two events, where his children are under 18 or his wife is incapacitated and ill. Apart from that, it makes the difference, against which I think no one has said a word, of making the age of Regency for the heir 18 years; and then it adds the Queen Mother. I hope that, after this discussion, the House will give this Bill a fair wind, and now let us have it unopposed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

Committee Tomorrow.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL

Order for Second Reading Read.

6.15 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of the Bill, hon. Members will know, is three fold. The first purpose is to increase the borrowing powers of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and of the British European Airways Corporation. The second purpose is to make provision for pensions for members of the Boards of the two Corporations. The third is to place the Corporations on the same basis as other nationalised industries in respect of protection under the Limitation Act, 1939.
I do not think the field of controversy in this Bill is very wide, but it does raise a number of important points. I will do my best, though briefly, to sketch the purpose of the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will, I hope, wind up the debate and deal with points that may have been raised.
In regard to the first purpose—increasing the borrowing powers of the two Corporations—some hon. Members may wonder why it is necessary to increase the borrowing powers before the Corporations have actually reached the figures already allotted to them. B.E.A.C. are approaching their ceiling of £20 million, their present borrowings being in the region of £16 million. B.O.A.C., with a limit of £60 million, have present borrowings of £40 million, but they have also placed orders, and will have to place orders before long, for further aircraft which will carry them beyond their authorised limit. It is the view of the Government, and I think it would be the view of any Government, that these two Corporations ought not to place orders, the honouring of which would mean their exceeding their borrowing powers.
We have to remember that they have to place orders long before the aircraft are delivered, and have naturally also to pay not only initial deposits but payments during the process of construction, to help the manufacturers to produce the required aircraft. It is our belief that this

proposal should cover the capital requirements of the two Corporations until 1960. I am not, of course, suggesting that they will spend all this money before then, but they may well enter into orders with the aircraft manufacturers which will carry them, after that date, into a situation where it may be necessary for further borrowing powers to be conceded.
I do not think the House will be in any doubt as to why this increase is necessary. Since the original limits were laid down there has been a very great expansion of air traffic. In the six years since 1947–48, the Corporations' scheduled traffic has nearly trebled, and, with the growth of tourist class flights, there is every likelihood of a continuing increase of 15 to 20 per cent. every year.
The second reason this allowance is necessary is the very heavy cost of modern aircraft. I think the House ought to bear in mind the advantage to our air Corporations, and to others as well, of being, as far as possible, equipped with the finest aircraft in the world. We have lately had the most vivid illustrations of how it has helped the Corporations to re-equip with modern types in the North Atlantic services, with their great potentialities. The share of that traffic that B.O.A.C. now enjoy has grown really quite remarkably. In 1947 it was 18 per cent., and last year and this year it is 42 per cent., of all the North Atlantic traffic to and from this country. That is in part due to the quality of the aeroplanes that they can command.
In the field of B.E.A.C., I gave the House figures a week or two ago, to show how, in Switzerland and Scandinavia, the proportion of traffic they enjoyed changed wonderfully for the better when they were able to re-equip themselves with Viscounts in place of their previous 'planes.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: A nationalised undertaking.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There are many reasons that I could suggest for the success that they have had, but that is about the last one that I should put forward. I have not ignored the general stimulus which has gone into the aviation industry from the Government's policy of new competition. We cannot ignore these lessons, and the Corporations are


making plans to re-equip themselves with Comets II and III, Britannias, and new Super Viscounts. I might add, as has been said before, that we ought never to forget that in their working out of these types, the Corporations have rendered a signal service to British exports.
The position at the moment is this. B.O.A.C., as I said, have got present borrowings of some £40 million. Of this, £33 million represents Airways Stock and £7½ million temporary loans. For the forthcoming period 1953–54 to 1955–56–57 they estimate that their capital expenditure will increase by nearly £63 million. Of this, £57 million will be for fixed assets, some £6 million in advances and loans to their subsidiaries and associated companies, redemption of stock or general operational development. There will, of course, be a partial offset by accruing obsolescent reserves. No one, I hope, will blame the Corporations or the Government if these figures are in part conjectural, because it is difficult to be certain of costs ahead. Specific commitments may vary from year to year and the phasing of their expenditure may vary also. Indeed, the obsolescence figures on the credit side are affected by the speed of delivery of the new types.
Of this £57 million for their fixed assets, 80 per cent.—that is £46½ million—should be spent on aircraft, aircraft engines and spares. As I pointed out, they will have to make deposits or progress payments on various types which will not be delivered before 1960, but for which, of course, they will require authority to borrow now.
In the case of B.E.A.C., they have borrowed some £16 million of the £20 million that they are authorised to borrow, and all of these borrowings are in Airways Stock. Over the same period as B.O.A.C—that is, 1953–54 to 1955–56–57—they estimate that their additional capital requirements will be some £14 million, and £11 million of this will be on aircraft or progress payments for aircraft. Up to now they have generally been devoting about 75 per cent. of the expenditure on their fixed assets to aircraft and aircraft engines and spares, but it looks as if in the forthcoming period that proportion will rise to some 80 per cent.
B.E.A.C. have got orders for aircraft at the moment standing at something

like £19 million, which will rise in the period ahead to some £29 million, made necessary by their re-equipment with Super Viscounts, Viscount replacements, the 20 advanced helicopters for which they want borrowing powers, and the re-engining of their Elizabethans. I think—in fact, I am sure—that these requests will stand the closest examination, and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will later be prepared to answer any detailed points, but I believe that we are here meeting in the proper way the inevitable needs of the Corporations, which will be reflected in largely increased earnings and in still greater British prestige.

Group Captain C. A. B. Wilcock: Will the Minister elucidate one small point? He spoke of progress payments being made, and said that part of this money is for that purpose. Is he referring to progress payments on aircraft which are now standardised and in service, or for aircraft which are still in the trial stage?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They are for aircraft which are not yet in service and for which the Corporations have given an order. They have made an initial payment—10 per cent., or whatever it may be, and in some cases more—which they put down at once. Then they put down progress payments which continue throughout the period of the construction of the aircraft, and I believe in most cases they are completed before the aircraft actually flies; with the result that the Corporations—and this creates even more difficulties for independent operators who have not the same resources on which to call as the Corporations have—will have paid for the aeroplanes before they have actually flown. We have to take account of that. We have to look ahead, even though they have not exhausted the amount they have to borrow.

Group Captain Wilcock: It is an arrangement which is very much in the favour of the manufacturers.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The manufacturers have their problems, too. I have been anxious to see whether any alleviation in this field is possible, and whether any more could be done to ease the position of the operators, but this is a matter which can best be left to negotiation


between the operators and the manufacturers. I am satisfied that there have been difficulties in this field for the manufacturers themselves, who have their orders to place to enable them to meet orders on, no doubt, similar lines.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: My right hon. Friend might like to know that foreign operators who order British aircraft follow a similar system of making progress payments.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No one is entitled to speak with more authority than my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), who knows this subject not only from an operating angle but from the manufacturing angle as well.

Mr. Popplewell: The Minister referred to the re-engining of existing aircraft. Does the same principle of progress payments apply?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should hesitate to give a snap answer, but my impression is that there would be progress payments made in a matter of that kind. After all, all the 'planes are not re-engined at the same time, and I take it that there would be current payments made throughout the period in which re-engining takes place. It is a heavy charge, but it does not apply to anything like the same extent as in the case of the capital costs of new aircraft.

Mr. Popplewell: Would those payments be made in the same way as for aircraft—that is, before the new engines are delivered?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will look into that point. This applies at the moment only to the re-engining of the Elizabethans. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that point when he winds up the debate.
I hope I can now pass to the second purpose of this Bill, though we will come back again to the borrowing part in the course of the debate if hon. Members wish. The second purpose is to make provision for pensions for members of the Boards of the Corporations. Here we are getting to a stage where the present Government are the heirs to the situation left by their predecessors. I recognise that this is a difficult matter, and I do not

blame our predecessors for not having come to an absolutely final conclusion about it. I inherited this situation.
In the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, the Transport Act, 1947, and the Gas Act, 1948, Ministers were given powers to make regulations to provide pensions for those people who had had pensions before, whether before their appointment to the boards they were employed in the industries or outside the industries. For some reason, the nationalisation Act creating the two air Corporations did not make that provision. I assume that it was because it was an experiment in nationalisation—the first of a series of Acts—but anyhow, this power was not given to the Minister, as it was given to me in my capacity as Minister of Transport and to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power in his capacity as the person responsible for the coal, gas and electricity industries. It seemed to me desirable, as we had to come to the House to ask for increased borrowing powers for the Corporations, to try to tidy up the situation which I believe is working unfairly to civil aviation.
If it is necessary to amend the law, I think I ought to complete the process and provide for possible contingencies. In asking for this enabling power, I ought also to ask for another enabling power, which exists in all other nationalised industries, and which enables pensions to be paid to Board members who have come from non-pensionable work, whether it is in aircraft service, service with the Corporations, or service outside. This is entirely an enabling power. The question whether we should use the power in this latter case is now under discussion.
I know that there are arguments against using the power, and I have heard them advanced. One argument might be that only a short period of service is in mind when one is appointing people to the Boards of these Corporations. Another is the need to maintain flexibility. But I must point out that in my endeavour to get the very best people on the Boards of these Corporations I suffer from a slight disadvantage—and my successors will suffer still more from it—by the absence of a power of this kind. So I would ask for the powers provided in this Bill in relation to pensions. All I am asking the House to do is to agree that the two


Corporations should be placed broadly in the same position as are other nationalised industries.
If hon. Members will look at Clause 2 of the Bill, they will see a little more clearly what I mean. Section 21 of the Act of 1949 required the Minister to establish pension schemes relating to employees, and I am glad to say that that has been done. No one has been more helpful in this field than my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and Thornbury (Mr. Perkins). It is now true to say that in all three grades the preparatory work is now over. I am glad that is so and that those schemes have been established.
This power to establish schemes, which in the 1949 Act was a requirement, applied to employees only, so I could not use it to give a pension to a man who joined the Board from within the Corporations unless he retained an executive job in the Corporation. If he did, under Section 21 of the 1949 Act he could qualify for a pension. But in nearly every case the sort of men one would have in mind would relinquish their work in an executive capacity as employees if they came on to the Boards of the Corporations. There are certainly two exceptions which I know of and, in so far as exceptions can be made under Section 21 of the 1949 Act, I have felt it necessary to ask Parliament to widen that power in the interest of equity on the Boards and in my desire to get the very best people to serve on them.
Clause 2 (1) deals with an ex-member of the staff who is no longer an employee but who goes on the Board. This would enable his job to be made pensionable either by carrying on an existing pension scheme, if he had been in one in his previous employment within the industry, or by other arrangements. This follows strictly what has been done in other nationalised industries. The Clause states that regulations made under Section 21 of the Act of 1949 may provide that service as a Board member shall be treated as if it were service as an employee who went on the Board. It would therefore apply to an ex-employee the right which an employee now gets.
That covers one group of possible recruits to these Boards. It still leaves uncovered the second group—those people who have been recruited for the

Boards from pensionable or non-pensionable employment outside. Clause 2 (2) deals with these people, and it would enable pension arrangements to be made solely for those people who come from pensionable or non-pensionable employment outside. They can either carry on their existing pension scheme, or some new pension scheme can be applied which would give them a pension roughly equivalent to that of those already on the Board.
I felt it necessary to set this matter out in some detail. I know there is interest among hon. Members opposite who know these difficulties and remember their own problems when they were responsible for this field, and my hon. Friend will answer any questions which are raised on this aspect. All we ask for is an enabling power to put the Corporations in the same position as, I understand, that of all other nationalised industries today. I think it is not unreasonable that this industry, which is doing so much for our national standing, should have the same consideration as every other nationalised industry.
The third purpose of this Bill is to deal with the protection afforded to the Corporations by the Public Authorities Protection Act of 1893. The effect of this Bill is to withdraw from the two Corporations this protection, and also the protection of Section 21 of the Limitation Act of 1939. In future, the period during which the Corporations will be liable to actions of contract or tort when in discharge of their public duty will be set at three years and not, as now, at only one year. It will be three years, as in every other nationalised industry.
The amendment will apply only to causes of action arising after the passing of the Bill. I think that is quite reasonable, because both the Corporations and the public outside have lived under a general law in this field for some years, and it would be clearly inequitable to both to make an alteration which was retrospective. This rather curious position has arisen in this way: the corporations operate under the general law concerning the limitation of actions against public authorities. The law for persons or bodies not public authorities is defined in Section 2 of the Limitation Act, 1939, which provides that actions in contract or tort may be brought at any time up to six years.
Under Section 21 of the 1939 Act, however, actions against any person or body in respect of any act done in execution of any public duty or authority, or in respect of any neglect or default in the execution of such duty, must be brought within one year. It has been held by legal decisions that the Corporations are public authorities for the purposes of this Section. This has meant that aggrieved persons have had to bring actions for contract or tort against the Corporations within one year. This is a singular situation in a nationalised industry. I think it is wrong that the Corporations should be in a privileged position in this respect, not only as against other enterprises but also as against all other nationalised or socialised industries—coal, transport, electricity and gas.
Under the Acts relating to all those undertakings, it was expressly provided that the two privilege Acts I have mentioned should not apply to these industries, and that the period of time for actions of contract or tort should be three years in all cases.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: That was before the recommendation of Lord Justice Tucker's Committee, which definitely asserted that the protection to the nationalised bodies should not be more than that given to anybody else. The nationalised industries which receive that protection—the extension from one to three years—received it before Lord Justice Tucker's Committee made their recommendation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. I did not want to burden the argument too much with the historical reasons for the differences. I expressly said at the start—what I said about borrowing applies equally to this—that I make no charge against our predecessors. These things have grown from circumstances at the time, but I think we would all agree that it is equitable now that the situation should be changed, particularly in the cases of personal injury, where there is difficulty particularly for people of limited legal facilities—people who do not know the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), for example—and who have to mobilise their finances in an attempt to bring their case within a year.
Indeed, I believe my predecessors as Minister of Civil Aviation have been from time to time obliged to ask the Corporations to waive their legal right and to make some ex gratia payment in particularly hard cases. I think the tidier way, and a fairer way to the Corporations, who have their problems of insurance as well, is to make the same situation apply to them as applies to other nationalised industries.
That is the sum total of this Bill. I do not feel ashamed at introducing in this Bill something which is comparatively non-controversial, as this is. I hope this is a foretaste of some of my other tasks in transport and civil aviation

Mr. Ernest Davies: That is up to the Minister.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I commend the Bill with confidence to the House. As I have said, we shall gladly answer any questions that may arise.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one simple question about the borrowing powers of the Corporations? Although this may be the best and cheapest way of borrowing the money which the Corporations no doubt require, may we have an assurance from the Minister that if he gets this Bill he will not countenance or encourage the hire purchase of aeroplanes through Mr. Gibson Jarvie?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has, perhaps, come a little too soon to the debate. Because they have the power of the State behind them the Corporations have no need to take advantage of finance houses, but I am deeply conscious of the need to help the provision of machinery to help those independants who often have to compete with the Corporations and who have no such facilities. I would see nothing dishonourable in taking advantage of the facilities provided by the United Dominions Trust or any other body prepared, within the limits laid down by the Treasury, to help in this important national service.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. F. Beswick: The Minister has introduced the Bill in a straightforward and businesslike way, and I do not see why the further consideration of it should not take place in


the same spirit. The Bill contains three provisions. Taking Clause 3 first, the last one of which he made mention, I should say that that would not appear to be controversial at all. As far as it goes its effect in limiting the privilege so far enjoyed in law by the Corporations seems to be wholly good, and although at least one of my hon. and learned Friends seems to think it should go still farther, I do not suppose there will be any criticism of the direction it takes.

Clause 1 sets out to increase the borrowing power of the Corporations. I think it is worth while calling attention to the fact, which has already been mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), that here in this method of financing a young industry we have possibly the most efficient and economic method there is. I believe that the capital so far employed by B.O.A.C. costs less than 3 per cent. at the moment. I really do not wish to rouse any controversy tonight as to the relative merits of public and private enterprise, but I should like to take this opportunity of underlining this particular advantage of public enterprise.

When we have an industry which is considered essential to the State, and the State, as a matter of deliberate policy, says that the industry must be developed, obviously it is only fair that the reward to capital should be limited. The ordinary commercial risk element in this case has been extracted by the decision of the nation, and it seems to me proper, therefore, that the capital should receive some reward but that it should not include any element for risk.

Those interested in these matters may very well compare the reward paid to capital in relation to this essential public industry of air transport with the reward it is now proposed to pay, under the new Tory policy, to the owners of capital in the equally essential national industry of steel. To that section of the steel industry which is passing into private hands, although the management, the men, the general level of initiative and enterprise remain exactly the same, the reward to be paid to the capital is immediately to be approximately doubled. It seems to me unnecessary and foolish to adopt a policy of that kind.

On this side of the House, therefore, if more capital is required for the de-

velopment of air transport, we believe that the right policy is the one which raises the capital as cheaply as possible. Moreover, it is good to think that in the future, when the benefits of present planning are more fully realised, they will then be available for distribution either to the workers—and in that category I include not only the men at the bench and in the cockpit of the aircraft, but also in the chief executive positions in the board room—the rewards will be available for distribution to them or to the consumers in the way of cheaper fares—

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: The taxpayers.

Mr. Beswick: —but not to the shareholders in the way of higher dividends. Ultimately, I would hope, the surpluses which may arise regularly each year will be ploughed back in part into the industry, and in this particular case the capital appreciation which will take place will again benefit the workers and consumers and the State as a whole, but not to those who simply lend the money.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that the Corporations can raise money at this cheap rate because of the Treasury guarantee? If he is attempting to draw a distinction between those who can and those who cannot he must note and publicise the great difference between them.

Mr. Beswick: I am calling attention to that very fact. Here we have a Treasury guarantee to a public industry which enables the Corporation to raise money cheaply, and the benefits of that policy, of that guarantee, will, in this case, in no circumstances go to the private owners of capital. That I hold to be wholly fair.
There is some danger—and I admit that I give an argument away immediately, but in fairness, and I always hope to be fair—that in raising capital by this method there may not be quite the same discipline in the employment of the capital. Although the Minister has clearly examined the need for the two Corporations to raise extra money, and although he has stated in some detail the purposes for which the new capital is to be employed, nevertheless it would seem to me that at present the amount of capital employed in relation to turn-over is by no means ungenerous.
B.O.A.C., for example, with a capital of less than £36 million has a total revenue of a little over £33 million, about £ for £ turn-over This is not a very high ratio, but when we turn to B.E.A.C. we find that the capital liability there, as the Minister said, is one of £16 million with a total revenue for last year, 1952 to 1953, of only a little over £13 million.
One must clearly examine this and ask whether the capital equipment they now have is being employed to the uttermost. It is difficult to make comparisons in this matter, although if we take the comparison of some other nationalised industries we find that the ratio of revenue to capital is considerably higher. I shall take two examples of other air transport companies, and even there the comparison is not, I am afraid, to the advantage of B.E.A.C. If we take K.L.M., with a registered capital of a little under £19 million, the total revenue is £24 million. That may be only pust a little better than B.O.A.C. but it is considerably better than B.E.A.C.
If we take Pan-American Airways, with a capital of just over £35 million, we find that the gross revenue for the year is rather more than £73 million. Clearly, there is a considerable difference which I think it may well be advantageous for the Minister to consider with rather more care.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that one should also measure the newness of the aircraft which the various Corporations are using? If they are using aircraft bought in 1949 at very much cheaper rates than those for present aircraft, then their capital will appear to be very low compared with their revenue. In fact, B.E.A.C. have many newer aircraft for which they had to pay much higher prices.

Mr. Beswick: I can well see that at any one time, after the purchase of aircraft there may be a lag between the payment of the capital and the time when the revenues follow from the employment of the machines. I can see that, but I am putting what I think are very relevant figures to the Minister and suggesting to him that he should assure himself that the money so far spent, especially in the case of B.E.A.C., is on equipment which can earn the maximum revenues.
Very little complaint can be made about B.O.A.C., but in the case of B.E.A.C. the Minister should look into the matter with some care. They are raising capital cheaply. It is possible for them to raise capital more easily than it is for other people. There is, therefore, a greater need to see that the capital is used advantageously.
Having said that, it is right that there should not be undue rewards to capital, especially if that makes possible higher remuneration to the personnel employed, I now pass to the Clause which gives power to the Minister to grant pensions to the Board members. As the Minister has said, this is a somewhat difficult question. There are arguments for and against the decision and the discussion of the matter has continued over a period of years. I am afraid that my memory must be at fault, because I was not aware that, as the Minister indicated, members of the Boards of other nationalised industries are now in receipt of pensions, or, at any rate, that the Minister has power to grant pensions.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's statement is correct; the enabling power is there. I did not say that these men were in receipt of pensions. I was trying to get the position standardised.

Mr. Beswick: I was not even aware that enabling powers existed in the case of the nationalised corporations, with the exception of the Air Corporations. If that is so, it was not a question of an oversight; a question of deliberate principle was involved. The original conception of membership of the Airways Boards was not that of a permanent position. The Ministers responsible for the Boards required some elasticity of movement. They required the opportunity to replace members. They wanted to be able to replace members of the Boards when necessary without having to consider whether they were breaking any commitments, implied or otherwise.
After all, it was not without proper consideration that the original appointments were made for a matter of only three or five years. It might well be that at the end of that time the Minister would wish to make a change. I think it would be wrong if any indication were given that, although the appointment was


made initially for three or five years, it had prospects of 15 or 20 years' regular employment, to be followed by a pension. On the other hand, I can well see that if a member serves his organisation well and faithfully for the better part of a lifetime, then some pension recognition should be made, as most hon. Members will agree.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Member referring to the full-time directorate or the part-time directorate, or both?

Mr. Beswick: I am coming to that.
As the Minister said, the position is further complicated by the appointment to the Boards of employees of the Corporations who, in their capacity as employees, now enjoy pension rights. Clearly, it would not be proper to punish them for their promotion. Again, we have yet another complication where the chairman of the Board also holds an executive position. It seems to me difficult to argue that his position as chairman should deprive him of pension rights as chief executive.
Perhaps we can leave this matter to the Committee stage and consider the problem a little more fully in the light of what the Minister said and in the light of further information, if he would be good enough to give it to us. Possibly I can then put some questions to the Minister, including that to which the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) referred. The Minister said that he wanted only the enabling power. I thought he would have had more clearly in his mind the purposes for which he intends to use these powers. He must have some idea, some sort of general principles, in his mind which will guide him in the use of these powers which he now seeks from the House.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When I used the phrase, "I only want the enabling power," I was dealing with the class of people who come from non-pensionable employment, whether inside or outside the Corporation. That is where I want the enabling power. In the other case, I think the situation has passed beyond the position where the enabling power is adequate.

Mr. Beswick: In that case, the Minister will be able to give the information which I want him to give.
Is it proposed to utilise this power to grant pensions as a general principle to be applied to all members of the Board or is the power to be used sparingly and in special cases? Secondly, will the House be informed of any pension arrangements before they are finally approved by the Minister? Will there be a minimum term of years to be laid down before any pension is payable? As the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield asked me, and as I ask the Minister, what is to be the position of the part-time Ministers?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have not yet reached that position.

Mr. Beswick: I am sorry; I meant, what is to be the position of the part-time members? This is quite an important question: will this be a contributory pension?
Again, what about the present salaries? The level of salaries already paid has been attacked very fiercely from time to time by hon. Members opposite because they maintain that they are too high. Of course, if pensions are to be granted, the effective scale of salary can be raised by several thousand pounds a year immediately, on the present rate of taxation. Are those pensions to be in addition to the present rate of salary?
These are all points on which the House is entitled to have enlightenment. On the basis of that information, I am sure we can come to the consideration of the Bill in Committee in the light of what we consider to be the best interests of air transport in this country, which interests, I am sure, hon. Members on both sides of the House wish equally to further.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: The House had the good fortune to debate the Reports of the two Corporations only a few days ago, and it is one of the accidents of the House that we should find ourselves now considering a Bill which covers almost precisely the same ground, because in granting very substantial sums to the Corporations the Bill covers, in the enabling Clause, the whole ambit of their operations.
There is some reason why some of us should want to question this matter of the Corporation again, and that is because of the somewhat unusual course which the debate took last time and certainly because of the very unusual nature of the reply which the Minister made at the conclusion of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) raised, for example, the question of the Tudor aeroplanes and the question whether they had a certificate of airworthiness and what was being done with them at the moment. I am quoting from memory, but I think correctly, when I say that the right hon. Gentleman replied to the effect that he would reply in a private note to my hon. Friend, giving him the information.
It is surely an almost unprecedented event in the debates of this House when the Minister in charge of a matter which directly concerns his office, and on which he ought to have all particulars in his mind, concludes a debate by saying that he will not give the required information to the 625 Members of the House but will send a billet-doux to the hon. Member who introduced the question in the course of his speech. I represent the constituency in which the Tudors were made, or at least on the immediate outskirts of which is the huge factory which makes the Tudors, and I should like to say one word about them. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to be making some gesture.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): The gesture was a shiver.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged for that explanation. I can only hope that I am not breathing so fiercely as all that.
The Tudors have an unhappy and unfortunate history. The mystery of the disappearance of the Constellation in the Caribbean Sea is going to be added to the unsolved mysteries of the sea, in just the same way as the story of the "Marie Celeste." No one now will ever know what happened. In the story of the Berlin airlift, which demanded valour of the highest kind, and which was an airborne operation of a kind never attempted

before, and one that was conducted with extraordinary success, the Tudor played an overwhelming part with very great distinction indeed. I can only say that in that connection the great firm of A. V. Roe made its greatest contribution. The Tudor was the civilian reproduction of the Lancasters and Manchesters which were a feature of their war-time production, and which played so great a part in the bombing effort during the war.
Arising out of that, I should like at some time in this debate to be told what is to happen in connection with the Avro Delta. That was designed as a military aircraft. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I am causing puzzlement to the Minister, or if I am not making myself heard, but it was well understood at the time that this military aircraft might be the prototype of a civilian plane. We have heard nothing about that since then. I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary should apparently express dissent when I am asking a simple question like that. What is going to happen when I come to the difficult ones?
I want to say one word about the Princess flying-boat. My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Mr. Morley), who always raises this matter with courage and great ability, referred to it in the course of the last debate on aviation. He could not get a satisfactory reply. I think that I am quoting the reply which was given perfectly fairly when I say that the right hon. Gentleman said that this was really a matter for the Ministry of Supply and not for him. In this House, in the last few weeks, we have had some startling innovations in procedure.
Questions are being shuffled from Minister to Minister at a rate which means that we shall have to install air delivery pipes for passing Parliamentary Questions from the Minister due to answer them to the Minister to whom they have been transferred. Questions which are put to the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations are referred to the Minister of Supply, and Questions put to the Minister of Supply are referred to the Minister responsible for aircraft production, and so on. I should have thought that, if one thing is clear, it is that it is the duty of the Minister of Supply, in relation to aircraft, to superintend the production of aircraft, and the duty of the Minister of Transport


and Civil Aviation to superintend the utilisation of aircraft.
Surely, the Princess flying-boat, having been produced, is a matter for the Minister of Civil Aviation, and we ought to have heard something about it in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen. We would be happy to hear something about it today. The Parliamentary Secretary, I hope, is aware that the Press have certainly been intimating that B.O.A.C. have suddenly taken a renewed interest in the Princess flying-boats, after having ignored them for a considerable time.

Mr. G. Lindgren: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not like that to go out as a correct statement of fact. It has certainly been the inference made in the Press, but B.O.A.C.'s interest in them has been over a period of a year, and the only difficulty was that they were not economic to operate, and the Corporation wanted some special financial arrangements if they operated them.

Mr. Hale: I hope that I am not being too critical when I say that when I quote something from the Press, I am not necessarily accepting that it is true. I am merely saying that it was in the Press. If it was in reputable papers, it may be a matter on which we ought to have information as to whether it is correct or not.
I think that I shall have some assent from both sides of the House in saying this. I personally deplore the decision to stop using flying-boats on a large scale in connection with air services to the Far East, the Dominion of Australia and the Union of South Africa. We are a maritime nation, most of our history is associated with events on the water, and we have unusual facilities for developing sea-going craft. I think that the most interesting and by far the most enjoyable flight I ever had was on a seaplane service with an unpronounceable name which starts with Q and no U, flying from Sydney Harbour, one of the most beautiful harbours in the world, at about 5,000 feet and looking down on the islands in the sunlight, on the craters of the volcanoes, and coming down at such romantic places as Rangoon, Singapore, Calcutta, Basra, Cairo, and Sicily and then on to Southampton. This journey in five days strikes me as the best way of

travelling from Australia, and no inducement would persuade me to want to fly at 40,000 feet to get home a day or two sooner and by doing so miss all the beauty and joy of that particular flight.
After all, the Princess flying-boat, for some reason, seems to have had a raw deal. We were told that the explanation is that they were fitted with Proteus II or Proteus I at an early stage of development and were found to be underpowered, but that they would be capable of carrying 120 passengers and of going across the Atlantic if only they were fitted with the modern Proteus III. This is a very great challenge to our initiative and to the initiative of B.O.A.C., and I suggest that this is a matter which ought to come up for consideration.
I should like to make a few general remarks on the course of the recent debate. I do not believe that it is necessary for me to defend the action of every nationalised Corporation because I have an ideological belief in favour of nationalisation. I have never believed that it is necessary for Members opposite to defend every effort of private enterprise, for the same reason. Some of them do not. I wish that we could approach these debates on the lines that here are national Corporations, which, of course, are open to criticism, as is anything else; and personally I would say openly and frankly that I regret that Parliamentary Questions are not put about them in the same way as Questions about the Post Office, because I think it is a perfectly good thing that we should have the fullest information and chance of criticism.
I would say that, so far as I am personally concerned, my correspondence with the British Transport Commission has produced about the worst letters of my correspondence with any authority. They are the worst and most ineffective letters which I have received from any public body. I wish that something could be done about it. I am sorry that the former Parliamentary Secretary, with whom I and other hon. Members had an interview, is not here tonight. We all express our sympathy with him in the illness which has deprived us of his services on the Front Bench, in a career which, if it was not going to be meteoric, would have been at least popular and good-humoured. I congratulate him on


the rapidity of his recovery which permitted him to go dashing about in a by-election last night.
In the last debate a few days ago, the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) said something that was relevant and important but, in my view, completely inaccurate. He said that the real test of efficiency is the profit, and no one would doubt his sincerity in saying so. He went on to put the perfectly fair point that the Corporations ought to be credited with the amount of work that they do in developing aircraft and in developing routes, or, indeed, in flying uncommercial routes for purposes connected with the Government's desires to open up new routes or new territories.
If one applies the test of profit, that would be a sensible and perfectly proper proviso; but transport must be a service, and it ought to be regarded as one of the essential services of the community. I do not think the railways will do a real job until every worker has a free travel ticket for himself and his family to where he wants to go for his annual holiday. That sort of thing is part of the essential service that transport should give.
I want now to turn to Oldham. One thing which I have observed with regret—I say this with great respect—and which I have commented on before is an attempt at a sort of territorial blackmail of the Chair by saying, "No Welshman has been called on this subject," or "No Scotsman has been called on that subject." In the recent debate on civil aviation, five Scotsmen appealed on behalf of Prestwick and one Welshman appealed, very ably and brilliantly, on behalf of Valley. I agree with what the hon. Member said, because Valley is an important and first-class aerodrome.
But today I want, humbly and diffidently, to raise the voice of an Englishman who represents an English constituency, and to say that the great conurbation of Lancashire was not mentioned at all in that debate, except possibly by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South; that it has a population of five million people; that it makes a bigger contribution to our commercial activities than any other district; that the

County of Lancashire alone has a population half as big again as that of the County of London, bigger than Scotland, and half as big again as Wales; and that B.E.A.C. are doing very little for Lancashire, and the time has come when we should have a look at Ringway Aerodrome.
The Minister talked today about the great proportion of the transatlantic traffic that we get. He said that our proportion has increased to 28 per cent. of that traffic.

Mr. Leonox-Boyd: Forty-two per cent.

Mr. Hale: What percentage of transatlantic traffic have we got from Manchester? I think I am right in saying that the answer is none per cent., because we do not run a single transatlantic service from Manchester, although Sabena Airlines are doing so. It is amazing that the opening up of this vast conurbation to transatlantic flights should be by a Belgian air company.
But that is not the main complaint as far as Lancashire is concerned. Everyone knows that one of the very great difficulties confronting British European Airways Corporation in their operations, particularly their internal operations in England, is the question of the time factor—the time that it takes to get from Waterloo to London Airport or from Ringway to Manchester. This results from what, I feel, are unnecessary delays in that respect, in a sort of passionate desire to look after the latecomer, which is all very well, but it does not happen on the railways.
If a person is not in time for his train, he misses it, and if a person is not in time for a bus to go to the airport, he should miss the bus. These things could be tightened up. The result is that it is not worth while flying from London to Manchester. An increasing number of people do it because we are getting air-minded, but there is nothing that is likely to induce the visitor from Manchester not to catch his 9.45 train from London Road station and be in Euston at 1.20. We are too much in the habit in the House of thinking in terms of central London. We forget the difficulties of travel to central London to get to the airport, or the difficulties of travel from the great towns of Lancashire to Manchester to take part in air services.
I said that I would refer for a moment to Oldham. The Minister will observe that his noble Friend, Viscount Norwich, in a recent book, has referred to its people with great accuracy as the kindliest people on the face of the earth; and I have had reason in recent days to realise that they are also generous-hearted. But when they talk about transport facilities, they are apt to be a little critical. In this very great town of 120,000 population, only six miles from Manchester, we have the worst railway service in the world. It climbs hills, it stops in the most incredible places, and it usually stops from time to time half-way up the hill. The people do not travel now by rail, if they can avoid it, but by bus; but by bus we are coming up against the old problem of road congestion, which is making transport almost impossible.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seems to be straying rather wide of civil aviation when he talks about railways and buses. I thought he was going to press the claim of Oldham for an airport.

Mr. Hale: I am doing that, although not for an airport; I want a place from which helicopters can fly to Ringway aerodrome. I am trying to deal seriously with the transport of the future. I am suggesting that the job of the Minister is to be planning the transport of the future and that he ought to be utilising the services of these two great Corporations in developing the transport of the future.
I suggest, with great gravity and seriousness, that our transport is getting worse instead of better, and that in the last two years no single constructive suggestion has been made by the Minister to deal with the whole transport problem. We are getting air-minded, and I suggest that the job of dealing with the future—10 years ahead, at any rate; and if we are dealing with 10 years ahead, we must start now—is the task of trying to relieve the congestion by providing the necessary encouragement and the necessary traffic in the air.
In the last debate, one of my hon. Friends raised the question of the helicopter. Everyone appreciates that there are substantial difficulties in connection with helicopters. The concluding paragraph on page 53 of the Report of the British European Airways Corporation

refers to the very great expense of replacing the blades on some types of helicopters, and page 54 gives a figure of £40 an hour for replacements. That seems to me to be a stupendous figure. The Corporation add the hope that this expenditure will be reduced rapidly and that, as a result of experiments now taking place, this major difficulty will be overcome. I should be very glad indeed if we could have some assurance that progress has been made in that direction and that the difficulty has been overcome.
There again, when the Minister replied to close the debate, he referred entirely to two-engined helicopters. That is, of course, precisely the problem, and it is the matter on which the House ought to have information in trying to decide what is the best way of spending £30 or £40 million in dealing with and in planning the air transport of the future. I do not claim any special technical knowledge of this matter but I try to understand these problems.
As I understand it, the two-engined helicopter is absolutely essential to the carrying of considerable numbers of people, because of the great danger of an engine failure when landing, in which event the machine would drop plumb, and there must be the alternative engine to prevent such a possibility. Here again, what is worrying me is that the Government seem to be thinking in terms of transporting large numbers of people from the roof of Waterloo Station to London Airport. We have got to think in terms of the transportation of small numbers of people from the old towns of Lancashire.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The only experiments in transporting people have been from the City of Birmingham to London Airport and Northolt, and however much we talk about transporting people from London Airport to the centre of London, that does not deprive the great municipalities of trying it as well, because here in the biggest of all airports, London Airport, we are trying out a worth-while system which will be of advantage to all.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged and we are watching that experiment with very great interest. The rotor station is close to Birmingham and I know it very well. But if the Minister will refer to page 53 of the Report he will find that only about


1,070 hours of helicopter flying were done by B.E.A.C. in the course of their financial year. They have six machines, but they have been in the air for an average of only half an hour a day or rather less, and that seems an incredibly small amount for this kind of thing.
I think the Minister misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I am not suggesting the use of helicopters on large scale transport. What I am suggesting is that if we are going to look at the problem of Lancashire, it cannot be solved by merely applying the methods which apply to London. In Lancashire there is a wholly different problem.

Mr. Profumo: I should like to make one observation, because I am extremely interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. We have got to remember that if we are going to use the helicopter it is not a question of whether we are transporting large numbers or small numbers of people. What we have got to think of is whether the people can afford to fly in these machines. In considering Oldham's problem, we must try to arrange for a sufficient number of people to be carried in these 'planes to make it possible for fare-paying passengers to pay their way.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman and grateful for what he has said. If I can get information on this matter my intervention for once will have served its purpose. There are all sorts of promises about heliodromes—an abominable word—being erected and all sorts of anticipations are stirred. It may be necessary to quieten some of these anticipations, but, as I understand it, the single-engined helicopter, with the stub wing, carrying a small number of passengers, is regarded as at least reasonably safe. The stub wing at least goes to offset some of the danger inherent in the single-engined helicopter, and which a two-engined type would avoid.
These are quite serious problems. It is a matter for which the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is responsible, and he should be responsible at a very early stage for calling a conference with his fellow Ministers concerned in this matter. This is something which must have a part in town planning; and in an effort to re-plan some of the old Lancashire towns they are now trying

to produce the sort of plan which they hope will be in operation in 20 years' time. To do that they have to get the maximum possible information about the trend of air development. They may have to decide whether it is necessary to have an aerodrome at all, or whether a small helicopter station will be sufficient to meet the needs of the future. They have to be able to plan for this, and have to have their transport suitably fixed and suitably available.
It is very difficult in this Chamber now to convey, as I would wish to convey, the difficulties of Oldham which are perfectly clear in Oldham. There the whole of the building development is taking place miles outside the town. We have taken in the land for modern development, and the question now arises whether the transport needs should be centred miles away from the area of the present development.
There is one final observation I wish to make and I think it lights up the whole of this problem. It may not have escaped the notice of the Minister that Oldham Athletic are now in the Second Division of the Football League. That involves transport problems. A week last Saturday it was necessary to transport some 1,000 or so people to Leicester. The actual method of transport was this. The crowd mounted the train at Mumps Station, at the northern end of Oldham, and changed trains at Clegg Street Station in the middle of Oldham. They went on then to Guide Bridge, which is in the division of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. McGhee), and they had to change there again. From there they made their way to Sheffield and changed trains again. From Sheffield they went to Leicester without any further change.
Coming back they came through Manchester Central. They had to detrain there and walk across Manchester to another station some miles away, Manchester Victoria, where they caught the local train. [An HON. MEMBER: "What was the result?"] I do not know whether I should enter into that, but I would say that the walk was less happy than would have been the case in normal circumstances because there were no consoling features all the way.
That is the sort of problem with which we are faced and it is just no good think-


ing in terms of Waterloo Station and London Airport when dealing with a matter like that. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that many people think quite sincerely—and I do not think it unreasonable—that in 10 years we shall be facing a whole new series of developments in the air, which may mean that much of our passenger transport is done by air, not merely between towns like London and Manchester, but also over those conurbations to which we should be able to travel quite easily. Therefore, the more information we can have the better, and the more information the municipalities can have the more reason we shall have for thinking that the money we are going to vote to these great Corporations is going to be spent in the common interest.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: There is a matter of some importance in this Bill to which I think the attention of the House should be drawn. I refer to Clause 3 and the provision in the two subsections of that Clause. The Minister has already indicated that in the ordinary way the time within which action can be brought either on contract or on tort, for an injury or breach of duty or neglect, is six years. But with public authorities, including local authorities and bodies of that kind, the period is limited to one year by the Act of 1939.
The period was increased from six months under the Act of 1893, into which I have no intention of going, to one year, and when nationalisation of certain industries came along, and we had legislation on the matter, the period was extended there to three years. This, no doubt, places the Minister in some embarrassment. The House ought to take notice, in all fairness, that ordinary citizens, ordinary business people, commercial concerns and industrial undertakings, many of them very large, with as vast and varied a scope of activities as public authorities, are liable to action within a period of six years, whereas an authority such as we are considering in the Bill is only liable at present to an action within one year. Under the provisions of the Bill we are extending it to three years.
The objection I have to this provision in Clause 3 is that Lord Justice Tucker's Committee, in 1949, said that the distinction between the period in which an action could be brought against an

ordinary person or an ordinary firm or an ordinary public body, and the period in which an action could be brought against a public authority, is an untenable distinction. The evidence before the committee proved conclusively that nobody wanted the distinction, or upheld the distinction, except those who benefited from it. Otherwise, every piece of evidence, without exception, was that this distinction was unfair and that it should be ended.
To make that position all the stronger, there was an important case in the Court of Appeal in July, and this distinction between these public bodies and ordinary people and business firms and undertakings came in for very strong criticism indeed. One of the Lord Justices reiterated most emphatically the manifest injustice which that position has involved in case after case. Whether the limitation is one year or three years is immaterial. The result is that legitimate claims for damages are barred. Often the reason why they are barred is that because of some inadvertence or ignorance on the part of the person who would be the claimant, or owing to difficult circumstances which sometimes inevitably arise, and owing, for the time being, to lack of evidence, and even in cases where negotiations are protracted because of the restricted period of limitation applying to these public authorities, the right to an action is lost and the legitimate claim for damages cannot be proceeded with.
Consequently, public authorities wriggle out of undeniable liability by an unreal and shabby defence on no ethical basis, and that shocks all sense of justice. I see that the Minister has the learned Attorney-General next to him and I ask them both to consider whether this cutting down of individual rights can be justified unless it is proved that considerable injustice would otherwise follow to those to whom that protection is given. In this case the injustice is actually the other way. The injustice is not on the public authority but on the person who is prevented from bringing his action within the normal period merely because the other party is a public authority and for no other reason or ground or merit whatsoever. As no doubt the Minister knows, and certainly the Attorney-


General knows, in many cases in the courts the question of whether the one year limitation applies—and it will be the same as regards the three years' limitation—is a complicated one. The legal position is not at all certain and is calculated to involve litigants in complicated and costly litigation which may, as it has on many occasions, have to find its final conclusion in the House of Lords.
This question of whether the limitation is to apply or not involves also a legal nicety, namely, whether the injury or damage was done in the "performance" of a public duty or was merely "incidental" to it. That is a maze to a layman, an offence to common sense, and a bar to justice. There can be no doubt that the rights of people in this respect are being frittered away by such fine threads of legal distinction, and it cannot be justified.
Most public authorities, including local authorities and these two Air Corporations, are no more handicapped in bringing an action within a certain time than anybody else. There is no reason, and there is no evidence that the Tucker Committee received, which shows why a Corporation of this kind has any more difficulty than any ordinary person or ordinary business or public body; in fact, the evidence proved clearly that these Corporations are better placed, because they have much more and much better machinery for promptly reporting any accident and also for the purpose of investigation. As a result of the definite evidence on this point which the Tucker Committee received, the committee unanimously declared itself against the distinction existing at present, and it was also in opposition to the suggestion that any of these Corporations or the nationalised bodies should have applied to them a lesser term of limitation than the six years.
The nationalised bodies are subject in every other respect to the ordinary law. The only difference to which they are subjected is on the period of limitation. In answer to an intervention of mine the Minister said, "All I am seeking to do here is to bring these two Coroporations into line with what happens to the other nationalised bodies." That sounds a plausible excuse for what the Minister is doing, but it is no justification. At the

time that provision was made in relation to the nationalised industries, the Tucker Committee had not sat and a conclusion had not been reached on evidence and on a thorough investigation of what properly ought to be done. What was done originally, before the Tucker Committee, with the three years was merely a temporary means of trying to make the position more just than it was at that time.
The Minister is, therefore, now in this ethical difficulty, that since then the Tucker Committee made its report in 1949, as long as four years ago. And the committee came out strongly against the imposition of a period of limitation on anybody—any public body or anybody else—shorter than the six years which applies ordinarily to everyone else. My chief objection to Clause 3 is that it runs absolutely counter to that. It must be wrong for one of Her Majesty's Ministers, for this House of Commons, and for Parliament, which appointed that Tucker Committee, now to do something counter to its deliberations which creates a further injustice and adds to the anomalies already in existence in this matter.
There is another point with which this Clause does not deal. I ask the Minister to consider it, because I do not think that it was in his mind when he talked about Clause 3. I refer to the question of a joint tortfeasor. To put it in layman's language, if two people are liable for the same neglect or for inflicting the same injury, and one is sued and held to be liable, then the other is ordinarily, by law, liable to make a contribution towards the damages recovered.
There is a gap in the law on that, and this Clause does nothing to correct it. If someone is sued who, along with the public authority, is jointly liable for some damage which has been sustained, the public authority can avoid paying any contribution if a year has passed—or, when this Bill becomes law, if the three-year period has gone. It can slide out of its responsibility as a joint contributor although the other party with whom it was jointly concerned has been held to be liable.
No one else in this country can do that in law, but the public authority can do it. The Court of Appeal, in July, said that the courts could not close this gap, but that they "hoped that Parliament would soon do it." The Attorney-General


knows this. I have asked him one or two Questions recently about this matter and the last answer I got was when he said:
… the Government recognise that there is much to be said for removing this distinction between public authorities and other defendants, but I cannot hold out any hope that it will be possible for the Government to introduce legislation at an early date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1953; Vol. 5.20, c. 13.]
The only effect of this seems to be that the Attorney-General says that there is no time in which to put the matter right, but apparently the Government have time in which to complicate it further. If this Bill has caught the Attorney-General's law reforming zeal, as it seems to have done, he is doing what he is doing in the teeth of the criticism of the Court of Appeal and he is ignoring the recommendation of the Tucker Committee.
The Attorney-General must be completely insensitive to justice in this matter. This Measure does not correct the unjust distinction to which I have just referred; it repeats it. It reinforces the anomaly about which the Tucker Committee complained and about which the courts and everybody else have been complaining for years. This is being done four years after the Report of the Tucker Committee and against the Court of Appeal's recent expressed view that they hoped that Parliament would do something to correct the matter.
Has the Attorney-General consulted the Lord Chancellor on this question? Surely the Lord Chancellor has not advised the Attorney-General to ignore the Tucker Committee and the Court of Appeal—or has he? This is a Government Bill and the Lord Chancellor is an important personage in the Cabinet. I want to know whether the Lord Chancellor has permitted this Clause to go into the Bill in face of what has been said by the Tucker Committee and the Court of Appeal.
There can be no justification for making a public authority a law unto itself and for setting it above the law to which the rest of the community has to conform. These Airways Corporations are in business for profit. We hope that they will make large profits. What is more important is that every year the safety of tens of thousands of people is in their hands. Acts of default and

neglect on their part may have the most dire consequences.
Why, in those circumstances, should they be privileged above other airlines which carry passengers? There is no justification for the limitation in Clause 3. It does not make the position any better to say that it was one year before and that now we are making it three years. That does not alter the fundamental fact that this is an anomaly and an injustice which nobody wants and which every responsible authority has said ought to be remedied. This Clause re-enshrines the anomaly in this Bill. I therefore propose to put down an Amendment in Committee which I hope will either modify it or get rid of it completely.

7.47 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Profumo): I have been most interested in the debate because, although I might be slightly out of order if I answered some of the contributions, many most constructive suggestions have been made and it is clear that the Bill finds favour generally with the House.
The reason for Clause I has been clearly explained by my right hon. Friend. There is considerable urgency about passing this Measure, especially in view of the requirements of British European Airways. I wish to reinforce the point that, to preserve their competitive position and to allow for expansion, it is most essential that the Corporations should be able to purchase the improved and up-to-date versions of the aircraft which they themselves have pioneered and which now are showing such a lead in world aviation.
I want to stress the point about the cost of modern aircraft. The House should not be under any delusion. These costs have increased to an unprecedented extent, partially due to the rise in production costs, but also because a postwar airliner, through technical improvements, has grown in size and complexity. It is of the greatest importance to the nation as a whole that we should be able to maintain our position in world air transport, first, from the economic point of view; secondly, for defence reasons; and, thirdly, to foster aircraft exports which are now assuming such great importance.
The point was made by two hon. Gentlemen in interventions during the speech of my right hon. Friend about the terms of payment required by manufacturers. We have looked into the question most carefully. We are satisfied that the manufacturers are giving the best terms that they can afford, bearing in mind the high cost of modern aircraft and also the high working capital which is required. As a point of interest, British manufacturers are not in isolation here. If one wants to buy an American aircraft one has to pay progress payments, and one would certainly have to pay the full cost before one could get delivery of the aircraft.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) asked me whether the re-engining of aircraft would have to be paid for under progress payments and would also have to be paid in toto before delivery. I regret to tell the House that at present no contracts have been settled for re-engining and it is impossible for me to give a categorical answer, but I suggest that in re-engining, as in buying aircraft, it is reasonable to assume that the Corporations will have to pay the whole amount before delivery.

Mr. Beswick: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the present arrangement under which almost the whole of the cost of development work after the aircraft leaves the manufacturers has to be borne by the operator? Is that fair?

Mr. Profumo: That is a new point, but the way the hon. Gentleman has put it is not entirely correct. The total cost is not borne by the operator. The cost is borne by Her Majesty's Government up to the time a certificate of airworthiness is issued. It is only after the certificate of airworthiness has been issued that the cost is borne by the operator. When that time comes, one must remember, as I told the House the other day in the debate on the Reports and Accounts of the Corporations, that, although they may have to bear a high cost of development, the Corporations get very great advantages indeed by being the first companies to fly these aircraft and having a lead over foreign airlines in the development of these modern aircraft.
I want to say a further word about the charges which the constructors of

aircraft make. It would not be in the interests of the Corporations to ask for extended credit terms, because in the end it would cost more, and in the national interest it is better that the Corporations, who can raise money at gilt-edge rates, should pay for their aircraft when they are delivered. If they did not. the manufacturers would be all the less able than they are now to finance purchases by overseas buyers and, indeed, by independent companies in the United Kingdom. In any case, it would not really make any difference in the long run because the Corporations would still require the powers which we are seeking today to enable them to make their final purchases at whatever date they have to make them.
During the course of his most interesting speech, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) gave the House a comparison between the working capital of the Corporations and that of foreign airlines. He made an extremely interesting point. I should like to comment on it, because it is not entirely fair to make the comparison in the way that he did, owing to the fact that at the end of the war, due to the "fly British" policy—a correct policy—which the Corporations adopted and which the then Government supported wholeheartedly, as we all did, foreign airlines, including American airlines, and, indeed, K.L.M., were able to buy modern American aircraft which had long life and a high disposal value.
At the same time, we in this country, owing to the "fly British" policy, had to make do in part with not altogether satisfactory aircraft, such as the Lancastrian, the York and the Tudor, and it is only now that we are finding ourselves in a position where we are buying, at rates cheaper than if we bought foreign aircraft, the most up-to-date aircraft produced in the world.
Therefore, if we are to make a comparison between the working capital of the foreign airlines and the working capital of the Corporations, it should be on the working capital on which the foreign airlines have been working up to the present time, and in our case we should look forward to what we can work on in the future, bearing in mind our modern aircraft which have a high disposal value and, ton for ton, will be more remunerative.
It seemed to me, listening to the debate, that the greatest contention was over the question of the payment of pensions to Board members. Let me say straight away to the House that there is nothing new or strange in the powers which my right hon. Friend is seeking in Clause 2. Her Majesty's Government are only asking the House to agree that the Air Corporations should be placed in broadly the same position as are the other public boards. Whatever the hon. Member for Uxbridge may have thought, it is perfectly clear, and quite correct to say, that all other nationalised bodies have provisions for pensions to board members. It has always been so.
Clause 2 (2) closely follows, as my right hon. Friend has said, the provisions in Section 2 (6) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, Section 1 (7) of the Transport Act, 1947, and Section 5 (6) of the Gas Act, 1948. Therefore, there have always been enabling powers to make arrangements for pensions for all Board members, except in the case of the nationalised airways.
It is intended under Clause 2 (2) to cover those Board members who do not come under Clause 2 (1); that is to say, those who are recruited from either pensionable or non-pensionable employment outside the industry. It is intended that the powers should be conferred by this subsection and used in accordance with general practice which prevails in relation to Board members who are not recruited from the staff of the concern in question.
Those who already possess pension rights may continue to add to them or they may receive pension rights roughly equivalent to those enjoyed in staff pension schemes. Board members as ex-employees continuing in staff pension schemes will continue to be governed by the staff scheme as regards contributions. Other Board members will also make contributions. That is a point which the hon. Member for Uxbridge raised on the analogy of the staffs scheme. In their case, there will not be an actual pension fund, but provision will be made from the general resources of the Corporations.
It was the late Government which decided to make use of their enabling powers to give pensions to Board members coming from pensionable employments, but the Air Corporations Act does

not contain these enabling powers in respect of Board members coming in with no pension rights, and the Clause has been inserted for that reason. We thought it wise when making these provisions to align the Air Corporations with all the other socialised industries and to provide for any contingencies. That is the whole story of the Clause.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge asked one or two questions about the Clause. I am only too glad to give the answers in so far as I am able. First of all, pensions certainly will be in addition to present salaries. Secondly, they will only be in respect of full-time members of the Board. Thirdly, as I have already told him, they will be contributory.
That brings us to the last Clause. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) made a very interesting but rather abstruse speech about this.

Mr. Hale: The Minister said that the Parliamentary Secretary would deal with all the technical questions. Does the hon. Gentleman propose to reply to my questions or not?

Mr. Profumo: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would wait a little longer. He has been good enough to listen to a part of my speech in which he is not interested. I shall do my best to reply, so far as I am allowed, with Mr. Deputy-Speaker's permission, because certain parts of his speech seemed to me to be outside the scope of the debate.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker was in the Chair from the start of my speech to the end. It is a very remarkable observation by the Parliamentary Secretary that I made points which were out of order and that he is not going to reply to them, not through any lack of deference to me but to correct an error made by Mr. Speaker in not restraining me from putting points to which he does not wish to reply.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): That may be a point of argument, but it is not a point of order. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Profumo: I said that I thought I would be in danger of being out of order in replying. I did not say that the hon. Gentleman was in any way out of order as, indeed, he spoke with only one interruption from the Chair.
I want to say a word about the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester, who seemed to give general support to the Bill. Her Majesty's Government recognise the general problem to which he referred, but I am sure the House will agree that we cannot deal with that one point and let all the others go by default. When this matter is dealt with it will be done as a whole. All we are seeking to do today is to clear up an anomaly in which the Air Corporations the placed as nationalised bodies.
When the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, which was the first post-war nationalisation Measure, was drafted, these points were inadvertently left out. There have been actions in the courts which clearly pointed to the need for a change in the protection afforded to the Corporation. We have thought it right to take the first opportunity of bringing the Air Corporations into line with other nationalised bodies. We can only deal in this Bill with the Air Corporations, and what we are doing does not run counter to the report of the Tucker Committee. We are going along the right lines, even if we are not able to go the whole way.
The hon. and learned Gentleman could not have meant one of the remarks which he made. He assumed that in trying to align the Corporations with other bodies we were taking a retrograde step. We are not. We are going in the direction in which the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to go, but we are only able in the Bill to do it in regard to the Air Corporations.
Now I come to the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Perhaps he will understand why I made the remark that I did just now. He started with some interesting remarks and made a very racy speech covering a great deal of ground. He talked about the civil type of the Avro-Delta. This is where I find myself in a difficulty in trying to comment. There is no provision in the present investment programme of either of the Corporations for the civil version of the Avro-Delta, and as this aircraft is at present entirely the responsibility of the Ministry of Supply I would be doubly wrong if I were to comment upon it; except to say that it is this sort of aircraft, which is being produced primarily for the Ministry of Supply, which, we hope, will benefit

us as successors to the civil aircraft which are now traversing the world with such success.

Mr. Hale: We are not discussing the Estimates of the two Corporations today, I agree. We are discussing giving the Corporations a blank cheque for £35 million, which they are entitled to spend as they like under the terms of the Act. All ancillary services are covered—buses from aerodrome to aerodrome, cakes, buns and anything they care to spend money on.

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. It will be a great mistake to think that the Bill is a blank cheque and that the Corporations can go off and buy buns, put up canteens or buy more buses, without the very strictest control.
I say, for the hon. Gentleman's information, that all we are doing here is to make provision to increase the borrowing powers of the Corporations. When a Corporation wants to borrow money it has to come to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and get his permission before it can raise loans or enter into any extra commitments. So far as aircraft are concerned, there is extra supervision. In fact, it would not be surprising if the Corporations thought that they were being, if anything, over-fettered.

Mr. Hale: The Parliamentary Secretary is right. There are checks and counter checks and, of course, the Corporations cannot buy ice cream cornets with the money. All I was saying was that, in the Parliamentary sense, the Bill is a blank cheque. The rest of its provisions are administrative. They are there, they are necessary, and they are exercised. I am talking about the Parliamentary Secretary's right to answer the question which I put. In Parliamentary terms, the Bill is a blank cheque, and we are discussing the whole operations of the Corporations.

Mr. Profumo: If that is what the hon. Member meant when he spoke about a blank cheque, and if the hon. Gentleman is happy about that, so am I.
Another question concerned the Princess flying-boat. Here, again, I am in some difficulty, because there is no provision for the purchase of the Princess in


the present investment programme of either of the Corporations. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that Her Majesty's Government have by no means lost interest in flying-boats. I think that is the point which the hon. Gentleman wanted cleared up.
I think there is broad agreement on all sides of the House that it would be totally wrong to ignore the flying-boat. There are these three Princesses in existence, and if either of the Corporations were to consider purchase of one or more of these flying-boats it would, presumably, be in place of some other aircraft. In those circumstances, there will be adequate provision in the powers which are sought under the Bill. I hope that that information will give the hon. Gentleman a certain amount of increased confidence.
The other point which he raised was about helicopters. I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I indeed assure the House—and my right hon. Friend has done so before me on previous occasions—that Her Majesty's Government are immensely interested in the future of the helicopter; but this is a matter which we must relate to the hard, brass tacks of commercial operation. It is not any good talking about rotor stations in the middle of cities, or of flying the people of Wales backwards and forwards unless we realise that, without very considerable subsidy by the Government, this will be impossible until helicopters become economic. It is to that end now that all Departments of Her Majesty's Government are bending their attention.
The hon. Gentleman said, "It is all very well, but the B.E.A.C. helicopters only spent a certain number of hours in the air last year." He must remember that that all took place under a subsidy which comes from the Exchequer and is granted by my right hon. Friend's Department in order to find out anything new about this aircraft. Quite clearly, we should be wasting public money if we were to go on flying helicopters around on the same routes after we had learned all the lessons which we think we have to learn. The next great step will be when the twin helicopter comes into production, which, I hope, will be in the near future. Then the hon. Gentleman will see more flying by helicopter. There is no lack of interest on the part

of the B.E.A.C., Her Majesty's Government, or the people. We should all like to be able to make more considerable progress, and the hon. Gentleman might help.

Mr. Hale: What about the single-engined helicopter?

Mr. Profumo: We do not regard single engines as satisfactory. The stub wing aircraft, which has two rotors, has two engines. We feel that it is not just a question of having one windmill which will hold you up in the air. We want an alternative engine which will operate both rotors or come into operation in the single rotor machine if something goes wrong with the engine. The existence of the stub wing is not sufficient. All possibilities are being explored.
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that as soon as we have managed to develop further the twin-rotor, we shall move towards the desire which he has expressed today. I was pleased that at the end of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said he was going to support the Money Resolution and the request to the Government to increase the borrowing powers. Therefore, ending on that note, I can with the utmost confidence commend this Bill to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Wills.]

Committee Tomorrow.

AIR CORPORATIONS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the borrowing powers of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation, it is expedient to authorise such increases—

(a) in the sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under section ten of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, being sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling guarantees given under that section;
(b) in the sums paid into the Exchequer under that section, being sums received by way of repayment of any sums so issued,


as may be attributable to the provisions of the said Act raising the limit on money borrowed by the British Overseas Airways Corporation from sixty million pounds to eighty million pounds, and the limit on money borrowed by the British European Airways Corporation from twenty million pounds to thirty-five million pounds.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Read a Second time and Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, the Road Traffic Act, 1934, and the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four, and of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, and the Licensing Act, 1953, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-five, being expenses which under any Act are to be defrayed out of such moneys; and
(b) such issues out of the Consolidated Fund, the raising of such moneys under the National Loans Act, 1939, and such payments into the Exchequer, as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Civil Contingencies Fund Act, 1952, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-four.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

PURCHASE TAX (FLOOR COVERINGS)

8.14 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move,
That the Purchase Tax (No. 2) Order, 1953 (S.I., 1953, No. 1356), dated 8th September, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th September, 1953, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
The need to make this Order springs curiously enough from an error in the drafting of a Purchase Tax Schedule made as long as five years ago which only in the last two months has shown certain practical consequences and difficulties. The point is, I am afraid, a somewhat complicated one, as points in this particular subject matter are only too apt to be, but I will endeavour briefly to expound how this question has arisen.
As the right hon. Gentleman opposite will recall, from the beginning of the Purchase Tax, it fell generally on floor coverings, and in 1947 an Order was made under which certain fabrics used mainly for industrial purposes were exempted from the tax. The position then stood, as in substance it broadly stands today, that fabrics used for industrial purposes were exempted and fabrics used for floor coverings were subject to tax.
In 1948, the tax schedules were revised and redrafted, and though the figures have been altered since, they are, as the House may be aware, basically the Schedules which exist today. In the course of that recasting what apparently was intended to be done was to retain the pre-existing position, that is to say, the liability of floor coverings to pay tax and the exemption of industrial fabrics.
But in the course of the drafting of what was and still is Group 6 of the Schedule, certain specific exemptions were laid down which probably—I say "probably" advisedly because the matter is not wholly free from doubt-overrode in the case of certain individual fabrics the tax laid down under Group 9 in respect of floor coverings generally. In any event, nobody noticed that at the time, nor, apparendy, for many years afterwards. But in the course of the present summer the manufacturers of certain fabrics, in particular various


forms of coir matting and jute floor coverings, on apparently examining the Schedules once again, came to the conclusion that there were exemptions in respect of these particular types of floor coverings.
The point was raised and it appeared that, on balance, they had been, probably wholly accidentally, exempted. In any event, certain manufacturers started to sell them tax-free. The trade generally asked to have the matter clarified, and my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that the sensible thing to do was to put the matter beyond doubt by making clear in this Order that these floor coverings were and would continue to remain subject to tax.
So far so good. The complication which I think has perturbed one or two hon. Members really arises on another aspect of the matter. I do not think, judging from my correspondence, that anyone has really taken any serious exception to doing with respect to coir matting and jute floor coverings something to restore what in practice had until this summer always been presumed to be the position, and making it quite clear that tax should continue to be paid on fabrics in respect of which it always had been paid.
But it is also a fact that this Order affects another form of floor covering which was hardly of any practical significance when the tax Schedule was drafted in 1948, but which has developed quite rapidly in recent years. The fabric is known as needleloom felt. Its use as floor covering has grown rapidly in recent months, and I am advised that the output this year is more than double that of the whole of last year. It is undoubtedly covered by this Order.
It is a matter of some doubt whether felt floor coverings would in strict law have been covered by the 1948 Schedule. The point at that time was largely an academic one, because such coverings were very little used for that purpose. They are now increasingly so used, and we thought it right, in clearing up the position with regard to coir matting and jute floor covering, to secure that it is also put beyond doubt that this tax falls on needleloom felt.
The reason is simple. It is one of several floor coverings competing with many others, and I am sure it is the wish

of the House that in the administration of the tax we should, so far as practicable, let it fall fairly and evenly upon all the competing commodities or articles concerned.

Mr. John Edwards: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether the Order covers milled felts?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I should not like to answer that question off the cuff, though I will make inquiries and see if I can give the right hon. Gentleman an answer. In a moment I shall be coming to the very difficult question to which I think his question relates of particular felts other than needleloom felts. I was taking the obvious and clear case first.

Mr. M. Follick: Would that apply to underlay felt?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: May I give my reply to the hon. Gentleman in the same terms as I have used to the right hon. Gentleman?
As regards needleloom felt, this is a floor covering which competes with others. One or two hon. Members have been good enough to write to me on this aspect of the matter, and to suggest that it was wrong to impose the tax, because it was a cheap felt, and rather within the analogy of articles in the D Scheme, and that it should be left as a cheap floor covering for people of limited means. That is, I think, founded on a misapprehension, because I have compared the prices of floor coverings, and it appears that needleloom felt comes roughly in the middle, so I do not think there is any very strong argument under that head.
I appreciate that those concerned in the manufacture of an article which has been de facto clear of tax, at any rate during the last few months, naturally feel—they would be rather more than human if they did not—some discomfort through the incidence of the Tax. I noticed that one of them, with very proper commercial enterprise Which I cannot but approve, has taken advantage of the imposition of the tax upon the product by including in his most recent advertisements, apparently among the attractions of his products, that the price includes Purchase Tax at real carpet rates. I think it is a most commendable example of commercial enterprise and of the snatching of some advantage from adversity.
Broadly, the purpose of this is not to increase the scope of taxation. The revenue considerations involved are comparatively small, if one looks at it from the point of view of new tax, though not wholly negligible if looked upon from the point of view of articles which have previously paid tax perhaps coming out of it. All told, adding the two considerations together, there is perhaps £250,000 of revenue involved overall. But the purpose of this Order is to secure that the tax upon floor coverings shall fall evenly and equally upon the different, competing types of floor coverings—broadly, carpets, these types of matting felts, and linoleum.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite asked me a question, as did his friend next to him, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), about other kinds of felt. Needleloom felt is clearly a floor covering for ordinary use. There are, however, other felts—sometimes called hard felts, and sometimes, apparently, called art felts—whose main use, as I understand it at the moment, is not as a floor covering, though it is possible that they could be so used. As always in demarcation questions, there are difficult and complex boundary issues. The Customs and Excise are in touch with the trade associations concerned, and are discussing with them whether an exact line of demarcation in the zone of these fabrics can be defined.
So far as this Order is concerned, it falls upon needleloom felts—and I only say this lest those concerned in the manufacture of needleloom felt feel there is some disparity between their treatment and that of the manufacturers of other types of felt. There are, obviously, marginal felts whose main use is not as floor covering, but which could be so used. Those are the sort of subject matter which, I think, the House will agree are best and most sensibly discussed with the trade associations concerned, and, as I have indicated, my officials are so discussing it with them. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising it, but I do not think it will give any serious difficulty. I have said what I have said in order to allay any anxiety on that matter, but the main point is to see that the tax falls equitably on these floor coverings.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The Financial Secretary has defended this Order, in a reassuring tone of voice, on the ground that it is a purely innocuous plan for correcting what he called an error in drafting, and to remove doubts, and so forth. I do not think the House may have realised that what he is doing is to put a new Purchase Tax, at a rate, I think, of 25 per cent., on a number of commodities which have hitherto not borne tax. Indeed he candidly admitted that he is hoping to raise, as I understand, another £250,000 by the imposition of this tax.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Not to raise an additional £250,000. There is £250,000 involved in this. If this article was not taxed other articles might not pay it. There is also the avoiding of such loss as there may have been.

Mr. Jay: Nevertheless I think that the consequence of the Order is to raise £250,000 of revenue.
Of course, we do not want to continue an error in drafting or an unnecessary anomaly in tax, or to encourage what might be described as tax avoidance through an unintended loophole. But there are two ways of getting rid of the anomalies. One is to adopt the Financial Secretary's plan and place this tax on certain articles not now paying it. The alternative would be to remove the Purchase Tax from, if not all these floor coverings, at any rate, the less expensive forms of them. I do think it is rather characteristic of the present Government's attitude to Purchase Tax that they have adopted the plan of extending, rather than restricting, the application of the tax.
It was our policy, in this matter of Purchase Tax, year by year to exempt from the tax altogether a number of household articles, particularly household necessities and other household goods, rather of this kind. We exempted a number in 1948, under the previous Government; a further batch in 1950, and a final one in 1951. Indeed, one of the exemptions which we had in mind for the future, together with cutlery and one or two other things, was precisely linoleum, which, of course, is taxed under this heading of floor coverings. Linoleum, together with coir matting, jute floor coverings, needleloom felts, and so


on, is really an article of ordinary household use in working class homes, and I think there is a very strong case for exempting it from Purchase Tax altogether.
Therefore, though we would not defend an arrangement which would permit evasion or continue an unjustifiable anomaly, we must not be taken tonight as supporting the continuance of the tax on all these less expensive and more utility type of floor coverings. Nor can the Financial Secretary really maintain that this change has to be made because this is the one exception to the present tax on floor covering. Indeed, some of my hon. Friends will raise the question of certain other types of felt which, it appears, are still free of tax.
But if I am correct—and I ask the Financial Secretary to put me right if I am wrong—there is still an exemption to it under Group 9, dealing with floor coverings, which we introduced in the previous Government at the end of 1948, and which relates to tiles and strips. I note that when I had the privilege of introducing that exemption, the present Financial Secretary attacked the then Government for doing so. This is why I want him to correct the present position tonight. He described our action in exempting tiles and strips from tax as
a thoroughly well-intentioned muddle on the part of the Treasury."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 967.]
—a state of affairs of which he disapproved.
At the end of the speech he threatened me with all sorts of deplorable consequences if I refused to admit an error out of sheer obstinacy. As far as I can understand, this error, "introduced out of sheer obstinacy," has remained in force not merely throughout the three subsequent years of the Labour Government, but is still in force today. At any rate, I want the Financial Secretary to tell me whether this is so or not.
The latest Customs and Excise leaflet setting out the present tax rates in force, which was sent from the Customs to the Library of the House of Commons as recently as 19th September, 1953, has the words "floor coverings" inserted in Group 6, which is what we are discussing tonight, so that it is up to date.
One finds under Group 9 (a) (ii) that
tiles or strips not exceeding 450 square inches in area, irrespective of shape,

are still exempt. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will confirm that that is true. If it is true, it shows that he is maintaining this error in operation, and also that there are already exemptions and anomalies under Group 9, which further weakens the Financial Secretary's case.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: This is one of the occasions when a Member on this side of the House rises with some diffidence. My confidence in and respect for the Chancellor are unbounded, but, if I may say so, they are a little less for the Financial Secretary. As he well knows, I am a critic of this Order and I must say that I have not been very impressed with his argument tonight.
I brought this matter to his attention—if, indeed, it needed it—about four months ago. I do not intend to deploy the case, very largely because mine is a constituency interest, part shared by the right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards), who has a larger slice in the share of this interest, and I leave him largely to deploy this case.
I am concerned on one or two grounds. First, I do not quite understand why the needleloom industry association was not consulted. I am aware of the answer which the Financial Secretary wrote to my letter. I do not think I am going beyond what I ought to do in saying that he now says that certain other associations, if not this one, are to be consulted about other forms of felt. I just do not understand the procedure. If there is a case for considering the degree to which these floor coverings are to be used, as opposed to industrial purposes, it ought to take place before, and not after, an Order of this nature so as to discover the true facts.
The right hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough has already intervened on the question of dyed mill felts. The answer given by the Financial Secretary was that it is difficult to draw the line. He said that, in the main, they are not used as floor coverings. Quite frankly, nor is needleloom felt. I believe that only about 5 per cent. of it is so used. That rather destroys this case altogether. I should have thought that it would have been better to leave well alone for the time being.
I am very glad to feel that the present Government take the view that, in the main, Purchase Tax is a bad tax. They have made that clear. It is no use tinkering with a bad tax. We shall make just as many difficulties by these Amendments as we are trying to remove. I criticised hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite on the same point on a previous occasion. If the policy is to get rid of this singularly bad Purchase Tax, which has caused so many troubles, particularly to the textile industry, do not let us start tinkering about with the tax a few months before the Budget and trying to make things equal, because there is no fairness in it.
This is not a matter upon which we shall have deep consciences, and it is not a matter in respect of which I have a strong constituency interest, as I have in the normal textile industry. I shall not threaten to vote against the Government. It is, however, a matter upon which I say that I do not think the Government are right. I wish they would have second thoughts and not try to tinker with a tax which is wrong. They will not achieve anything by this Order, as far as I can see. As a matter of general policy I am against it, and from the particular point of view before us I do not think they will get anywhere with it.
If they had taken the trouble to investigate the point with the various interests concerned they would have realised that they were not closing the gap to which my hon. Friend has referred. They are not closing it; they are just having a dig at one industry because it is apparently in error to Government views in this matter. That is not fair. I am sorry that I cannot agree with the Government on this point. It is not a matter of conscience if the question is taken to a vote. It is not one of the major matters on which I should vote against the Government, but I protest against it.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) has made a most useful contribution to this debate and I am sure that the whole House appreciates the difficulty of his position. I shall not develop the arguments as to what he should do with his vote. It is quite clear that on this occasion the Treasury have

entered very light-heartedly into an arrangement which they thought would not arouse any real opposition, and they found themselves in difficulties of which even now they are not fully aware.
The Financial Secretary said that needleloom felt was not one of the cheaper grades of carpeting, or, at any rate, it was not the cheapest. I hope that he will tell us of cheaper kinds of floor covering of a kind that we would put in his own sitting room. He mentioned linoleum. I do not know whether he expects people to put linoleum in all their rooms. Needleloom felt is a type of floor covering which is not very expensive, because it is not of the highest quality, but none the less it is a kind that many people could afford, and there was a growing sale for this type of floor carpeting throughout the country, because it met the needs of the people who could not afford more expensive carpetings which bore Purchase Tax.
The Financial Secretary mentioned that he was seeking to correct an anomaly and right an injustice. He said he had consulted the people concerned—at least, I think he said that. Whether or not he did say it, it is obvious that the people concerned in the carpet industry made their representations abundantly clear.
It is equally apparent that those who were affected, on whom this Purchase Tax Order was to fall, were not consulted before it was introduced, and I should like to know what steps the Financial Secretary has taken to provide at least equality of treatment to the different sections of the industry. When he replies to the debate I hope he will say what steps he took to consult the needleloom felt industry. We should like to know whom he consulted.
One thing is apparent, that this Purchase Tax Order was generally anticipated by the trade for several weeks before it came in. I did communicate with the Chancellor on the propriety of this information being made officially available before the Purchase Tax Order was brought into force, and I am assured that it is customary to make orders available about three days before they are brought into force. However, this information was generally known in the trade at least a month before the Order came into force.

Mr. Hirst: Before.

Mr. Shackleton: The hon. Gentleman would say a great deal longer—four months, possibly. It is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The Financial Secretary may defend himself by saying this is a risk that must be taken if consultations are to take place, but here we have a position in which one-sided consultations took place, in which information regarding an important change in taxation was generally known amongst the interested parties. That had a depressing effect, it may be argued, on those people who wanted to buy carpeting. Indeed, a most unsatisfactory state of affairs developed.
There is another point of view. Did the hon. Gentleman or the Chancellor consult the Board of Trade before they introduced this Order? Did they consult the Board with regard to the effects on employment? I am told that there has been a very heavy reduction in the sales of this particular type of material since the Order came into force, and it is affecting the potential employment of people not only in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Shipley but also in parts of Lancashire, in Rawtenstall and Burnley—indeed, in parts of a Development Area in Lancashire.
We have the Order brought gaily before this House merely with the argument that it is to right an anomaly. Since when has the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously concerned himself in taxation policy with righting an odd anomaly? We know that the taxation law is full of anomalies, and here the Chancellor has gone about righting them in the wrong way. I would ask the Financial Secretary to speak to his right hon. Friend and consult him very seriously as to whether they have not taken a wrong step and whether they should not look again at the whole position of the taxation of floor coverings and carpeting.
In this action the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend have struck a blow not only at those people who find it difficult at the present cost of living to furnish their houses adequately but also at the living and employment conditions of many people whose living and employment is already threatened. I hope that hon. Gentlemen on this side and, indeed, in all parts of the House, will show quite

clearly that they disapprove of the action of the Government in this respect.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: My interest in this matter was not derived from my time at the Treasury, when, fortunately, I had nothing whatever to do with the perplexities of Purchase Tax. I have a considerable constituency interest in this matter. Firms in my constituency are involved, and they employ many workers whose livelihood depends in part on this product.
I think it is a great pity that the Government have decided to impose Purchase Tax on this needleloom floor covering. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) put the case extremely well, and although I do not always agree with him, on this matter I think we can say we are in complete accord, with the possible exception that I am a little freer than he is to go into the Lobby of my choice. When the hon. Member for Shipley spoke, we ought to have recognised that he did so with great experience and also reinforced by the views of his colleagues in the chambers of commerce. We have therefore to take account of what he says, because in this matter he can speak in a much more representative way than can many of us here.
The fact of the matter is that the effect of this Order is to impose tax on a product which has been free from tax hitherto and which is bought, in the main, by people with small incomes. I appreciate as well as anyone the argument about an anomaly. Goodness knows, I have deployed that argument myself on very many occasions when I have spoken from the Front Bench opposite. I submit, however, that when an anomaly has persisted for five and a half years, then as the years have passed it has become more and more part of the pattern of the market conditions both for the product concerned and for other products, too. I would never complain if a Government came along and said, "We did this; we made a mistake; it is only a few months ago; may we put it right? "But here we are talking about something which has continued for five and a half years.
Moreover, what the Government propose will not deal with the real anomaly. Only a fortnight ago I went round an institution with which I am connected,


and I was interested in the floor covering in all the bedrooms. I found out that the floor covering, which was entirely satisfactory for this purpose, consisted of dyed mill felts—the kind often described as hard felts or, as the Financial Secretary has said, art felts. Here is a product freely obtainable and, in my experience, quite useful in the connection and free of tax.
It seems to me that there is no point in dealing with this matter piecemeal and in saying we are correcting one particular anomaly if we are already conscious of the existence of another anomaly. I had hoped that the Financial Secretary would stand by the brave and glorious speeches which he made when he was in Opposition and would seek a way out of his difficulty, not by putting tax on something, but by taking tax off. Only on Sunday I was speaking to some people in my constituency of Brighouse who told me how this needleloom floor covering had been such a help to very many people in the lower income groups, not least to the newly-wed. It will not do for the Financial Secretary to compare this product with linoleum. The uses are not the same.
I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter in the light of the advice which he has had from both sides of the House, to withdraw the Order and to have another shot at doing something which will be more satisfactory from the point of view of all the producers concerned. Will he try to do something which does not make it more difficult for the people with small incomes to have floor coverings of the kind they desire? I hope he will take the Order back. For my part, I think it a mistake by the Government to have introduced this Order, for I am sure its effects will not be the kind which the Government want. They had very much better think again.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will, if I may, reply to a number of points raised in the course of the debate. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who followed me, accept the general proposition that we ought to right anomalies of this sort if we can. I do not think he was very serious in the suggestion that one way available to us to right this

particular anomaly was to withdraw the tax altogether from all floor coverings. The cost of that would be £15 million a year, and I must point out that the tax at present imposed on these articles is, of course, at a lower level than it was when he occupied my position.
We have, I think, in this issue of the corrective power of procedure by Order, taken the most sensible way of remedying this anomalous position in which inequality can so quickly develop. In that context, the right hon. Gentleman drew my attention to the anomaly in connection with tiles and strips. I have been aware of that position for some considerable time. Although I am not able to say anything tonight, I can assure the House that I have not forgotten it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, when I say that, will not reiterate it by accusing me of sheer obstinacy.

Mr. Jay: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he has any intention of removing it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I were to answer that I would say that any intentions there might be would manifest themselves in the usual way.
I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) who speaks, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) rightly said, with considerable authority on subjects affecting textiles. Let me deal, first, with his point about consultations. He objected that the needleloom felt industry was not consulted before the tax was imposed, and trusted that they would be in the consultations that I have indicated are taking place in the industries concerned in connection with the marginal classes of felts, which may or may not be widely used as floor covering. I would ask my hon. Friend to look at it in this way.
When we are dealing with marginal and technical questions such as that of these felts, it is helpful for a Government Department to have the advice and views of the trade associations concerned. That, I should have thought, required no argument. It is not quite the same situation as when we are deciding to deal with a particular situation by the imposition of a tax. It is obvious that, when we enter


into discussions, if we start to enter into them about possible tax changes it is difficult to restrict those discussions and to prevent people from jumping to conclusions. Once the tax has been imposed it is a different matter and one on which it is extremely helpful to have consultations.

Mr. Hirst: I agree with the force of that argument, but it is a fact that this was known for several months. It may have been a rumour but it was a very strong one. I feel that there is a case in that instance for an important association like this to be given an opportunity of advancing their particular claims if the gap is to be completely closed. I do not dispute the advantage of that from the tax point of view so long as the tax remains, but they should be given an opportunity to advance their case to ensure that the gap is closed and my point is that the Treasury have not done that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall come to that point in a moment. I do not accept that this was known for months. But presumably there is no reason why the hon. Gentleman's intelligent anticipation—and it is very intelligent anticipation, I am sure—should not lead him to the conclusion that this was going to be done. If, indeed, it were known, I cannot see why those concerned should not have made representations on their own initiative. None of us can prevent various industries indulging in guesses, some of which turn out to be correct and some a great deal less correct.
Then my hon. Friend suggested that we ought really to have left this alone. With great respect to his experience, I would say that that was not possible. He did not deal much with that aspect of the Order which I dealt with in the earlier part of my speech. The fact is that in the case of matting floor coverings tax had been paid for years and the enterprise of one or two manufacturers in questioning the liability for tax did open up the whole question. It was, therefore, essential to put the matter beyond doubt one way or the other and to make it quite clear that they were taxable or not, otherwise those which continue to bear tax are put in a quite impossible competitive position. For that one reason it was impossible to leave the matter alone.
Equally, while I should never say that one had closed all the gaps, I would say that even in the felt sphere the needle-loom is the major competitor with other floor coverings, and although in this sphere, as in others, no one can claim to have achieved 100 per cent. perfection, I think we have closed the gap to a sufficient degree to justify taking the action. If we were in a position to do so and discovered a position like that, it is our responsibility, in view of Parliament's having entrusted us with this Order-making power for this precise purpose, to exercise those powers for that purpose.
The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton) took up the question of the relative price of needleloom felt as compared with other floor coverings. I indicated in my opening observations that I had comparative prices available but did not wish at that stage to inflict them on the House, but as the hon. Member would like me to deal with that aspect I shall do so. As I understand, needle-loom felt is marketed, broadly, in two grades, the second grade at 16s. to the square yard and the first grade at 23s. These figures fit very well into the category of the other floor coverings, in respect of which I shall give broad figures. The commoner forms of carpet run, I gather, from 17s. to 35s. a square yard; of course, there are dearer luxury kinds.

Mr. Tom Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman quoting retail or wholesale prices?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Retail, tax paid.
Jute matting is at 10s. and coir matting is at 11s. 6d. a yard, and linoleum is cheaper at from 2s. 9d. to 11s. 6d. It is not right to suggest that needleloom felt could be singled out as a particularly basically cheap floor covering which on social grounds should be dealt with differently from all other forms of floor covering. I appreciate the force of that argument if the facts would support the hon. Member in making it, but the facts do not support him. This is a floor covering well in the zone of price of other floor coverings, and a very meritorious one no doubt, but not one which it is fair to the others to single out in the way that the hon. Member was good enough to suggest.
The hon. Member referred, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, to this having been known before the tax—

Mr. Shackleton: The hon. Gentleman gave a figure for the cheaper forms of carpeting. Could he give the figure without Purchase Tax? He mentioned one form of carpeting which retails at 17s. As far as I can gather from his figures, the type of carpeting or floor covering that we are discussing is the cheapest thing of its kind, which ordinary people would call carpeting. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is being fair in considering that matting or linoleum is in the same category.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Those who manufacture needleloom felt would agree with the hon. Member, but I am not so sure that those who manufacture coir matting or linoleum would agree with him.
If the hon. Member is to deal with the matter fairly, as he always does, he must address himself to the point that these are competing fabrics, that they are used for the covering of floors of people's houses, and that the decision whether to buy one or the other, as in the case of most people—as, indeed, in the case of most hon. Members—is not unaffected by the price at which they can be purchased. If that is so, the hon. Member must look at these things together if he is to play fair, not only with the employment of the people he represents—I appreciate his interest in that—but with the employment of the people engaged in manufacturing the other and competing fabrics. I am sure he will realise that that is fair.
Then there was the point about this being known beforehand. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, I do not know whether there were rumours, but the hon. Gentleman put the specific point to my right hon. Friend when he wrote to him on 9th October. The hon. Gentleman said that this was known on 12th September, and the tax came into operation on the 14th. My right hon. Friend pointed out to him that the Order was laid in this House on the 10th, and it could have been legitimately known on the 12th. I think that should be given, because any suggestion that

forthcoming tax changes are known in advance naturally causes a great deal of disturbance.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough said that in his time at the Treasury he was spared, by the intellectually august nature of his duties, from having to deal with the irritating complexities of Purchase Tax legislation. I am not saying whether I envy him the lack of that salutary experience or not, but when he mentioned the point about employment I am forced to remind him of what I said a moment ago to his hon. Friend.
I have no reason to believe that employment in this industry has been affected, but we must look at the matter from the point of view of employment throughout the industry. It is not a good way to deal with taxation to suggest it is a good thing to stimulate employment in one product at the expense of those who work at another product.
Then there is the other point with which I should like to deal, when hon. Members admit that this is an old anomaly ask, why not leave it alone? That, as I might add, is a very conservative argument. The difficulty is that though the anomaly itself is old—it flows from an error in the Purchase Tax Schedule attached to the Finance Bill of 1948, for which I certainly was not responsible—any substantial effect of the anomaly has only recently been seen. That is because during the course of this summer the difficulty arose in respect of coir matting, and, at the same time, the expansion of competition by needleloom felt took place. It then became necessary to deal with it.
Accepting the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, if we are to deal with an anomaly it is much the best thing to deal with it speedily before the pattern of trade has hardened in that particular direction. I think I can tell him that that is precisely what we have done. As soon as the anomaly became known and began to have appreciable effect, we took action to remedy the matter. The result will be, so far as most of these articles are concerned, to restore the position to what it was generally believed to be before somebody took to reading the Purchase Tax Schedule with a critical and intelligent eye.
I have tried to deal with the arguments that have been put and with the case for this Order itself. So long as floor covering remains subject to this tax it is right that it should, as far as possible, fall fairly upon them. Owing to a purely technical error of drafting years ago, this state of affairs arose, and my right hon.

Friend thought fit to exercise the powers which Parliament has given him for this very purpose in order to put it right.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 140.

Division No. 3.]
AYES
[9.5 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Grimond, J.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Oakshott, H. D.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Arbuthnot, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. ft. (Blackburn, W.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hay, John
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Banks, Col. C.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Barber, Anthony
Heath, Edward
Pitman, I. J.


Barlow, Sir John
Higgs, J. M. C.
Powell, J. Enoch


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Profumo, J. D.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Hollis, M. C.
Redmayne, M.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Horobin, I. M.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bishop, F. P.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Renton, D. L. M.


Black, C. W.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hurd, A. R.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W. H.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford, N.)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon P. G. T.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Bullard, D. G.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Scott, R. Donald


Burden, F. F. A.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shepherd, William


Campbell, Sir David
Kerr, H. W.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Carr, Robert
Lambert, Hon. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Speir, R. M.


Channon, H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stevens, G. P.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Lindsay, Martin
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Cole, Norman
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Storey, S.


Colegate, W. A.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Studholme, H. G.


Cooper, Sqn, Ldr. Albert
Longden, Gilbert
Summers, G. S.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
McCallum, Major D.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Crouch, R. F.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.



Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Grayson, G. B.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Tilney, John


Drewe, Sir C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Turton, R. H.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Duthie, W. S.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vosper, D. F.


Fell, A.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
Marples, A. E.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Wellwood, W.


Fleteher-Cooke, C.
Maude, Angus
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Maydon, Ll.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Fort, R.
Medlicott, Brig, F.
Williams. Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Frater, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Frater, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gaibraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollek)
Mort-Radclyfle, C. E.
Wood, Hon. R.


Gatbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
York, C.


Godber, J. B.
Neave, Airey



Gough, C. F. H.
Nicholls, Harmar
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, H. R.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Mr. Kaberry and Mr. Wills.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Nield, Basil (Chester)





NOES


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Beswick, F.
Callaghan, L. J.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Blackburn, F.
Chetwynd, G. R.


Awbery, S. S.
Blyton, W. R.
Clunie, J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Coldrick, W.


Balfour, A.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Collick, P. H.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Bartley, P.
Burke, W. A.
Crosland, C. A. R.


Benson, G.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Cullen, Mrs. A.




Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Richards, R.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Deer, G.
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dodds, N. N.
King, Dr. H. M.
Ross, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Royle, C.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Lindgren, G. S.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Logan, D. G.
Short, E. W.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
MacColl, J. E.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Fienburgh, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Fletcher, Erie (Islington, E.)
McGovern, J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Follick, M.
McInnes, J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Glanville, James
McLeavy, F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Gooch, E. G.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sparks, J. A.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Steele, T.


Grey, C. F.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mason, Roy
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hale, Leslie
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Merpeth)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hamilton, W. W.
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hannan, W.
Morley, R.
Thornton, E.


Hargreaves, A.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wallace, H. W.


Hastings, S.
Moyle, A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hayman, F. H.
Mulley, F. W.



Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Murray, J. D.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Herbison, Miss M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hobson, C. R.
Oswald, T.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Holman, P.
Padley, W. E.
Wigg, George


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Paget, R. T.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Will T. (Dtwsbury)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hoy, J. H.
Paton, J.
Willcy, F. T.


Hubbard, T. F.
Peart, T. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Popplewell, E
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, G.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Winterboltom, Richard (Brightskie)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Proctor, W. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Pryde, D. J.



Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (GREECE)

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Greek Government of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Draft of an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Greece) Order, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th October, 1953, in the last Session of Parliament, an Order may toe made in the form of that Draft.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

TRANSPORT COMMISSION VEHICLES (HIRE-PURCHASE)

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Transport) Licence, 1953 (S.I., 1953, No. 1116), dated 20th July, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st July, 1953, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
I move the Prayer because I and my hon. Friends regret the necessity which

the Government have seen for the introduction of the Statutory Instrument and because we have grave suspicions about their reasons for doing so.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in January, 1952, included among the measures which he introduced in connection with the financial situation at that time restriction of credit facilities for hire-purchase agreements. The Statutory Instrument was introduced in March of that year. The Opposition then prayed against it and divided on it because we considered that it would not be effective in the objectives at which it aimed and that it was in the nature of class legislation in that it put restrictions on such articles of domestic consumption as sewing machines, bicycles, radios and television sets, and the sections of the community which would suffer most from that severe restriction of credit facilities would be those not in the highest income groups.
Included in the goods on which there was to be restriction of credit were motor vehicles and the purpose of the amending Order is to remove from hire-purchase credit restriction the motor vehicles which are to be sold off by the


British Transport Commission. The Order enables purchasers of former Road Haulage Executive vehicles to be freed from credit restrictions on hire-purchase.
In the first place the original Order has not been effective in achieving the purposes set forth by the Chancellor, which included a check on productive capacity in the interests of defence and exports, thereby discouraging the home market and encouraging the export market. The Monthly Digest of Statistics shows that in the case of practically all the articles in the Schedule to the Order, production has declined and the percentage of production going into the export market has also declined. Therefore, if any action was required on the Order, it would be that it should be scrapped now rather than that it should be amended in this way simply to give assistance to one section of the community to enable it to fulfil the Government's desire to split up the road haulage business of the Transport Commission and hand it over to a large number of small men.
The Licence which we are considering has a most disreputable history. It is the culmination of a discreditable story of collusion between the Road Haulage Association, the United Dominions Trust, and the Minister himself. I do not want to go into all the details, as we have discussed these on previous occasions, particularly during consideration of the Lords Amendment. The fact remains that the history of this matter starts with the pressure which was exerted by the Road Haulage Association upon the Government to relax credit facilities in regard to road haulage vehicles. Of that there is no question whatsoever.
I have here the journal of the Road Haulage Association, "Roadway," for June. Here it is said:
The principal difficulty has lain in the fact that Government Regulations at the present time restrict the period of hire-purchase agreements on such items as vehicles to a mere 18 months, which the Association considered to be too short to encourage any of its members to buy. Accordingly, the Association made strong representations to the Government on this issue.
It goes on to point out that the Government had now recognised that special concessions would be necessary if buyers were to be found for the transport units.
This amendment to the Schedule of the Statutory Instrument is the result, there-

fore, of direct pressure by the Road Haulage Association upon the Government in order to make it easier for their members to purchase the transport units when they come on the market. Further than that, it is also to enable the United Dominions Trust, in association with the Road Haulage Association, to establish the Transport Unit Finances for the purpose of financing the hire-purchase of these vehicles by members of the R.H.A. The decision to form this company was first announced on 5th February. It was not until some time in April, the 21st, that the House actually discussed the matter.
On 22nd April, the United Dominions Trust announced in a statement that it was on the authority of the Government that they had entered into these arrangements with the Road Haulage Association. It was therefore with the authority of the Government that it was arranged that the United Dominions Trust and the Road Haulage Association should establish a financial trust which would have the advantage of being exempt from the restrictions on credit facilities at this time.
There is no justification for making this exemption, and no useful purpose will be served in connection with defence or the economic situation, for which purposes the original Order was introduced. I contend that it will have a very adverse effect on the road haulage industry in the future. Although it may initially have the effect of fulfilling the Government's intentions of attracting small men into the road haulage industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—yes, initially—and breaking up British Road Services, it will in the long run have the result of these small men getting into financial difficulties and finding their vehicles mortgaged to the United Dominions Trust.
The Trust will ultimately foreclose on many of the vehicles, and will come into possession of them, if the small men are unable to meet the payments under their hire-purchase agreements. They may get into financial difficulty and be unable to meet the payments due because of the state in which the road haulage industry will find itself after the Act has been put into operation, and the industry, as far as the B.R.S. is concerned has been disposed of.
There will be a fleet of new entrants into the industry operating comparatively cheap vehicles, and they will be competing one with another. There will be cut-throat competition, and the weaker will go to the wall. What is more, the services now provided to industry will in many cases no longer be provided because these people, being subjected to such strong competition, will be compelled to operate only on the remunerative routes, and to carry only the traffic which they are forced to carry in order to make a profit.
There are a number of reasons, which we frequently discussed during the transport debates, which could be put forward on this point, but I do not wish to delay the House by going into them this evening. However, there is one further point I wish to make on this issue, which is that the small men who purchase vehicles on hire-purchase agreements will also find themselves up against considerable competition from the C licensees who themselves may bid for these vehicles and then be able to use them not only for carrying their own goods, but also for transporting other people's goods for hire or reward. In other words, an entirely new factor will enter into the industry.
There is a continuing increase in the issue of C licences despite the Government's policy and the fact that the Transport Act is now on the Statute Book. When the argument about C licences was raised in this House, hon. Members opposite stated time and time again that these licences had increased owing to nationalisation. I suppose they are now increasing due to denationalisation. They increased, apparently, because of the uncertainty as to the state in which the road haulage industry would be after nationalisation, but it is quite clear now that, owing to the uncertainty that exists in the industry, caused by the Government's transport policy, these licences have further increased.
In my view, the result of this will be that the one purpose of the Act which was particularly pursued by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset. South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), the desire to prevent vehicles from passing into too few hands, will be defeated. That is because, although in the initial stage

there may be an attraction to the small man to come in, he may find that, owing to the difficulties of operating in a competitive system, he is unable to carry on. If that happens, these vehicles will drift back into the possession of the Financial Trust.
Before the war, road hauliers frequently found themselves in pawn to the financiers and had to surrender their vehicles to them. In this way, the financiers got into the business simply because they were left with the vehicles. Hon. Members know full well that that was frequently the case with clearing houses. The clearing houses, the middle men as they were, who were also financing the road haulage industry, when the people they were financing were unable to continue operations had themselves to go into the industry with those vehicles.
If that happens, as I think it will happen, with the United Dominions Trust, it will mean that that Section of the Transport Act which provides that the Commission, in determining transport units, shall have regard to the desirability of avoiding any step which is likely to lead to the elimination, or undue restriction, of competition in the carriage of goods by road for hire and reward, which was the modified version of the noble Lord's Amendment concerning too few hands, will be defeated.
In my view, there is no justification for this amendment of the Schedule of this Statutory Instrument, because there lies behind it this sordid history of party politics, which has used this means of assisting that section of the road haulage industry which we in this House frequently have suggested assisted the Government party opposite in obtaining power, and this is one of the means by which those services are to be repaid. If that is so or not, the fact remains that it is through pressure on the part of the Road Haulage Association that this action is being taken.
I say there is no justification for this privilege. It will lead to deterioration in the industry, through splitting it up into far too many hands, creating far too much competition and thereby doing damage to the industry, including the export trade of this country, which the original Order was introduced to assist.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to second the Motion.
When the original Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order was about to be introduced, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the House the reasons for it. He gave them in the course of a long speech on the general economic situation and, cut short, they come to this:
Many of these things make life easier and pleasanter—they are part of the higher standard of living. But we cannot have unlimited access to them if they or other things made in their place can be sold abroad to pay for the food and raw materials that we must have."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 59.]
The right hon. Gentleman then went on to describe the particular steps that were to be taken to prevent us having unlimited access to those things which make life easier and pleasanter. One of those steps was the original Order, and the first instance he gave happened to be motor vehicles. He said, quite rightly, as regards hire-purchase, that it is essentially a form of living beyond one's means. I hope that no one will attribute that particular remark to me; it derives from the high authority of a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Those were weighty reasons, the Order was introduced; it has remained in force ever since, and it is not proposed now to repeal or withdraw it. Consequently, we are entitled to say that the Government still wish, by means of this Licence, to restrict a form of living beyond one's means. Those being the reasons for the original Order, I regard this Licence which we are praying against—and I ask the House to regard it—as nothing short of scandalous.
This is a particular exception introduced into the Order that was put before us for reasons of high policy, for reasons which affect the welfare of the country as a whole, and perhaps not inappropriately introduced under a Defence of the Realm Regulation. Now the defence of the Realm is to be whittled down and, as I hope to show in a minute, for the better defence of Mr. Gibson Jarvie and his friends, we are, by that much, going to impair the national interest and the defence of the Realm. That is what this amounts to.
The original Order put two main restrictions on hire-purchase agreements. One was that there should be a deposit of 33⅓ per cent. of the price, and the other that the maximum period of credit should be 18 months. Which of them does not happen to suit the Government at the moment in this matter I do not know, but I suspect strongly that it is the one-third deposit, and the effect of this Licence, therefore, will be that for what seems to the Government to be good and sufficient reason, a number of men are to be allowed to buy lorries from someone who has purchased them from the Disposals Board, without any deposit at all and with the power of repayment over any period, however long. The Government are taking their hands completely off any power of restriction in this matter, in this one case.
Someone said just now that it was a good thing to have small men buying lorries—

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member applauds. I hope hon. Members will remember that a spider's web catches a considerable number of small flies, but it is what happens to the flies in the web that is the question in this case.
Let us just see exactly what the small man is being invited to do. He is being invited, in direct consequence of this Licence—that is to say, if the Prayer fails tonight—to buy lorries without any deposit at all, or with only such deposit as happens to suit that fine judge of the public interest, Mr. Gibson Jarvie, and his friends, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the small man who does not particularly want to pay a deposit. That is the position. Let us see how this has come about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has referred to the United Dominions Trust, of which Mr. Gibson Jarvie is the Chairman and Managing Director. May I say that I know nothing whatever about Mr. Gibson Jarvie, except for the ebullitions which he delivers to me year by year to express his growing and overwhelming dissatisfaction with any Government at all. The first one was the Labour Government. The present one is the Tory Government. For all I know, he may


have some particular affection for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, but I cannot say that he extends it to all aspects of the Government's financial policy.
This man, or his company, in association with the Road Haulage Association, formed what was called Transport Unit Finance Ltd., a private company, lest we should know too much about it, which was formed for the express purpose of assisting the Government to sell these public lorries to people who might not, without that company, be able to afford to pay for them, and who might, in fact, do exactly what the Chancellor said in January, 1952—indulge in a form of living beyond their means.
That is why the company was formed, and it is to assist the company in that purpose that this particular restriction—introduced in the public interest—is now to be taken off. Let us see what the effect will be. As I understand, we shall inevitably get men who are hard put to it, who would not have the money to buy the lorries in the ordinary way, if the proper deposits and the proper limitation on the repayment period remained in force, being able to buy them because of this Licence.
They will start in this notoriously difficult business—because it is a difficult business—without any adequate financial backing. I do not say that they will all be like that, but that is what this Licence encourages. The result will be that a number of them will find things very difficult from the financial point of view. They will have to go on paying the United Dominions Trust or its creature, the Transport Unit Finance Ltd., because otherwise, as in the case of any other hire-purchase agreement, there will be provisions for seizing the vehicles. Nothing in the legislation introduced by a recent Act will matter, because the price will be too much.
The result will be that in some cases, in order to preserve the lorries and to keep going in a venture that it was rash to undertake, they will be forced to take it out of someone. They will take it out of one of two sections of the community—those who use the lorries or those who run the lorries—and the history of this industry in the latter respect is certainly not one which should allow that kind of

thing to be done again if it can possibly be prevented. It is certainly not the duty or the right of any responsible Government to make an additional opportunity for that kind of hardship to be inflicted again on the men working in the transport industry.
These matters of finance may seem at times to be a little dreary and technical, but they come back on the lives of ordinary men and women. In this particular case the lives they will come back on are the working lives of the men engaged in the transport industry. I do not wish to exaggerate in any way. I do not say that this will happen in every case. I simply say that it will happen in some cases. If there are no cases, there is no point in having this Licence. It is just because this sort of thing will happen in some cases that the Licence is necessary.
What is the Government's justification? I think I know. In the last resort it will be the upholding of the high Tory principle that we must at all costs encourage individual enterprise in road transport, and if we find a little difficulty in doing so in the ordinary way we must take the extraordinary step of making an exception for the purpose of a particular matter where the national interest formerly prevailed. It is a most remarkable thing that these exceptions continue one after another, and seem always to enure to the benefit not of the working men and women but to some selected, fairly powerful, rather prosperous class in the community. Brewers have had a good time on one of them earlier on, and I could go on giving a whole list, but I should quite obviously be out of order in doing so.
I simply ask hon. Members opposite to look at their own legislation to see if this is not in the very true spirit of it. Here, again, is an exception which, oddly enough happens to operate in favour of a number of finance houses in the City; which, oddly enough, puts at risk the lives of ordinary working class men; and which, oddly enough, infringes on a principle of our national economy which is better stated than I could hope to state it by the very Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer who is a colleague of the right hon. Gentleman now asking us to support this Licence.
I have only one more point to make, and it is very short. I feel anxious about


the small flies. They are dealing with people who have had a lot of experience. I am not quite certain how they will fare. I am particularly troubled from another point of view. It always gives me a warm personal pleasure to see the Attorney-General sitting there. Perhaps he will tell us exactly what is going to happen as regards the special privileges given only to purchasers and their successors in title.
Clearly, the small man who buys from the Transport Unit Finances Ltd. will not be their successor in title. He will not, indeed, have, strictly speaking, bought from them: he will have hired from them; and at the end of it all, at the end of the period, when he is having to pay or not to pay instalments, what is to be his position as regards the rights which, under Section 3 (4) of the Transport Act, were to inure only to purchasers and successors in title?
I agree that this is a lawyers' point, and I am not going to dwell on it now, but I do say that to introduce a general regulation in the interests of the country, to justify it on the sort of grounds upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer justified it, to keep it in force and not to repeal or withdraw it, and then, at the same time, to issue a general licence for no other general public purpose than to promote a particular piece of Tory policy with somewhat doubtful associates is, in my opinion, an absolutely scandalous proceeding.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this subject and to correct, perhaps, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) as regards a number of inaccuracies which he has perpetrated in this matter. To deal with the first and most obvious one that occurs to me, he has charged the Chancellor of the Exchequer with having, so far as motor cars are concerned, prevented hire-purchase facilities from being granted. I am sure the House will agree with me that the motor car is frequently a luxury, and, even though sometimes it is a business necessity, nevertheless it is something in regard to which there can properly be restriction of credit facilities for hire-purchase.
In this case, however, far from dealing with a question of Tory principle, we are dealing with the rights of ordinary working men in the country. [Interruption.] Yes, we are. We are dealing with the rights of small operators to have the opportunity to purchase the opportunity for a livelihood. That is what we are dealing with, and the whole of the purport of the opposition to this licence comes down to this short point. If we are not willing to grant this Licence, the effect will be that we shall ensure by the result that we create another monopoly—a monopoly of private interests instead of the monopoly we had when we had nationalisation. That is what will occur.
Perhaps I may explain this for a moment. The Licence gives an opportunity for the small road haulage operator to be in a position to purchase the vehicles by taking out hire-purchase and obtaining from the corporation the finance which he needs. If we prevent him from obtaining the finance for his hire-purchase, the result will be that the very large operators will be the only alternative buyers in the market, so that, far from reducing the monopoly, as we seek to reduce it, we shall merely have created another monopoly in its place.
By providing this system of finance, we can have diverse road transport throughout the country and ensure the services which we desire these men to operate. The justification for this extension is plain on that ground, and there can be no possible support for a suggestion that the luxury trade of motor vehicles can compare with the rights of the men to have this opportunity to enter into the business which was pinched from them when the industry was nationalised.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Pinched from them?

Mr. Rees-Davies: Yes, pinched from them.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) suggested that one danger was that in the future the finance corporation would foreclose. All I can say is that in my recollection of the previous days when these vehicles were operated freely, there was extremely little foreclosing. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to produce any figures which would support any general statement of the kind


which he made in relation to the ordinary road haulage operators at the time when they were taking advantage of the assistance of that finance.
In my view, it was absolutely essential in this case that the Minister should grant an exception by giving the Licence to enable these men to come back into business. Unless we do that, we should have merely secured the transfer of the whole of this business to the large operators.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. A. Hargreaves: I want to develop an argument which has not been used in the debate, and it is the danger which I see if the facilities provided in the Statutory Instrument are made available. I fear the extension of this heavy road haulage to the small man, which was commended in the speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). I fear it for a very good reason—because of the appalling toll of road accidents.
What relation has that to this question? [HON. MEMBERS: "None."] Let me explain, if I may. The present trend of road accidents is rising sharply. It fell during 1952, but in every month this year, without exception, right through to September, the number of those killed and severely injured in road accidents has sharply increased over the corresponding months in the previous year. The general tendency is for the number of road accidents to increase this year. I want to place before the House as shortly as I can figures which will prove to the satisfaction of anybody who uses them objectively—

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker? Are we in order in arguing the principles of the main Act, the Transport Act of 1953? Is it not a fact that the Act provided for the sale of certain road haulage assets to private enterprise operators? Surely what the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) is now doing is to endeavour to confute the principles of that Act and to argue against it, for road safety cannot stem from any consideration inherent in the Statutory Instrument before the House.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it not true that my hon. Friend

has pointed out that the danger of the proposed Statutory Instrument is that it would encourage people to enter the industry who might endanger road safety because of their inexperience and because of their financial difficulties?

Mr. Speaker: All the considerations advanced by both hon. Members were present to my mind as I listened to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves). I was waiting until he could relate the question of road safety to the question of hire-purchase, which is the matter with which we are really concerned. I was not ignoring any differences between the two points. I was waiting patiently for the hon. Member to connect his argument with the Motion before the House.

Mr. Hargreaves: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the way in which you have helped me. I wanted to develop my argument as plainly and as carefully as I could. The principle of the main Act is accepted by the House and by the Government. We are not debating that. I am not attempting to get round the rules of order in any way. I say that here we have a Statutory Instrument which encourages small undertakers to come into this industry and to own and run vehicles on our roads, who through lack of capital and of maintenance depots—

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that the hon. Member's argument would apply to all small owners of vehicles whether they obtained those vehicles by hire-purchase or not. What he has to do is to show that this Licence should be annulled because the extension of hire-purchase in some way would conduce to the result about which he is warning the House.

Mr. Hargreaves: I am basing my speech upon the attitude of the Minister of Transport in advising the House, earlier in our debates, that the purpose of making these facilities available was to encourage the small man, who otherwise had no financial resources to come into this industry. I want to ask the Minister and the House to recognise that, in providing these hire-purchase facilities for people who have no other financial resources, he is exposing the industry and the country to a danger which could be avoided if the field were limited to people


who did not need these facilities and who came into the industry with adequate financial resources. That is my point. If these people had adequate financial resources, then this Statutory Instrument would not be necessary.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member can show that an extension of hire-purchase facilities would increase the number of road accidents, he can pursue that argument. I think that he understands my point, and I am perfectly certain that the hon. Member has no desire to get out of order on this matter. I am sure that he will, with the warning which I have given him, confine his argument to what is strictly in order according to the rules of the House.

Mr. Hargreaves: Evidently, I am as yet unable to make myself clear. I feel very strongly that the people who need this Licence ought not to be coming into the industry at this time and taking over small units of road transport. Those who do not need the Licence I am prepared to trust within the orbit of the Act to accept financial responsibility for maintenance, the payment of proper wages, and all that.
I have spoken of the general road accident figures and I want to prove the point by quoting as an example a large organisation with ample financial resources which does not need the Licence, the kind of large road organisation which has maintenance depots, runs regular traffic on the roads, and does not need the facilities. Anybody who needs these facilities cannot give the same service to the public or maintain the vehicles as they ought to be maintained. If the Minister denies this, I remind him of the startling results of the 48 hours' work on the roads by his own inspectors, who proved conclusively that a great number of vehicles which are working regularly on the roads are in no condition to do so.

Mr. Nabarro: British Road Services.

Mr. James Callaghan: Nothing of the kind.

Mr. Jack Jones: Their vehicles are better today than ever.

Mr. Hargreaves: The vehicles of the firms which have ample resources are used with confidence, in the knowledge that the large undertakings take meticulous

care over maintenance. When a public service vehicle comes to the end of its working day—

Mr. Rees-Davies: Will the hon. Member agree with my experience that the regulations of the Ministry regarding the maintenance and use of vehicles are extremely severe? Would he also agree that the police carry out their duties in that respect very properly? If so, would he agree that his argument cannot be valid, as excellent repairs are being carried out on the vehicles in accordance with statutory obligations?

Mr. Hargreaves: I answered that point in anticipation by referring to the inspections by the Ministry officials, which proved that in two respects—steering and brakes—70 per cent. of vehicles were not up to the prescribed standards. That is a complete answer to the point.
I was describing the experience of mast of us with road passenger vehicles. The concerns with adequate financial resources maintain their vehicles to a very high standard, and their public service vehicles are used by the public with the utmost confidence. I come now to the comparable figures for goods haulage vehicles. I have spoken of the exceptional way in which the road passenger services are maintained, and I spoke earlier of the dreadful increase in—

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This Licence against which the Opposition are praying, cannot possibly refer to any road passenger vehicle. It can only concern road haulage freight vehicles to be disposed of under the 1953 Act. In those circumstances are not the whole of the comments of the hon. Member out of order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): It seems to me that that is a very narrow point. We are simply dealing with the acquiring and disposing of these vehicles. Their condition does not arise on the Licence at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, I think it is quite simple: they acquire vehicles and dispose of them with certain restrictions.

Mr. A. Woodburn: With respect, this matter was raised with Mr. Speaker and the point was put to him that the people requiring these credit facilities were


people who did not have sufficient capital to maintain their vehicles in good order; and that if this Licence were persisted in, it would bring people into the industry who would be liable to put vehicles on the road which were not road-worthy and not properly maintained. Mr. Speaker said that so long as the remarks were confined to dealing with that point, my hon. Friend would be quite in order.

Mr. Nabarro: I am not sure, Sir Charles, whether you have taken my point correctly. The point is this: the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) is addressing his remarks to the subject of the disposal of road passenger vehicles.

Mr. Hargreaves: No.

Mr. Nabarro: There are no such vehicles to be disposed of under the main Act, and therefore the whole of these remarks are out of order because what we are discussing this evening flows from that Act.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought I was supporting what the hon. Gentleman said when I remarked that it was rather a narrow subject for debate.

Mr. Hargreaves: I think that is the seventh point of order that has been unsuccessfully raised by hon. Members on the other side of the House this evening.

Mr. Nabarro: Successfully.

Mr. Hargreaves: I was endeavouring to place before the House certain figures in connection with road haulage vehicles and my argument was addressed to the point that the need for this Statutory Instrument is to enable people to go into the industry who have not adequate financial resources to maintain their vehicles in the condition in which they ought to be maintained. I think it is perfectly fair and reasonable for me to contrast the experience of road hauliers with adequate financial resources to maintain their vehicles properly within the law and not to break the law—as has so often happened in recent months, sometimes with the encouragement of Tory Members of this House—with the position of people without the financial resources to maintain their vehicles in proper condition.
I also referred to the fact that the figures of road accidents have increased every month this year, but the British Road Services figures have for some months run in exactly the opposite direction to the general experience of road haulage vehicles. I can quote the figures if hon. Members desire them, but they are available in the Library. They are figures submitted by the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. Charles Doughty: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have listened without interruption to a whole lot of stuff which bears no relation at all to the Licence before this House. The figures for road accidents have nothing whatsoever to do with the Licence we are now considering, and I would ask that hon. Members be confined to this Licence.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am doing my best to try to keep the debate in order. If I fall short, I apologise, but I am doing my best.

Mr. Hargreaves: That is the eighth point of Order raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If the House will permit me to place these figures before them, we shall get on with this debate much more quickly. I referred to the fact that road accidents have increased every month this year and I want to give the figures for the same period, January to June, in 1952.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not see how that can possibly be in order, because this Licence came into operation only on 23rd July this year.

Mr. Hargreaves: I suggest that this Licence will bring into goods road transport people without adequate resources, and will therefore add to the road accident figures. I wanted to prove that point by quoting figures showing the number of people with adequate financial resources to run road vehicles.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understood that, but the figures which the hon. Gentleman wishes to quote must necessarily relate to a time before this Licence came into operation, so they have no relation to it.

Mr. Nabarro: rose—

Mr. Hargreaves: The score of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) up to the present is only seven points of order. I thought he was rising to make another.
Anybody who views the matter objectively will agree with our experience that the running of road haulage vehicles with adequate financial resources for their maintenance contributes to additional safety upon the roads, and that the dreadful accident figures to which I have referred will be increased if, by the operation of this Statutory Instrument, people are enabled to come into the industry without the means of obeying the law in regard to the proper maintenance and condition of the vehicles that they use.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I have listened to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite with considerable interest but with growing amazement, because it seemed to me that they were making a lot out of a very little. In fact, they have been attempting to create a mountain out of a very small molehill.
The facts that lead up to this Statutory Instrument are extraordinarily simple, and it is the logical conclusion of a string of facts which we ought not to be debating at all. As the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) pointed out, the question of the sale of lorries was decided by this House on the Transport Bill some months ago. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like it, but they were in the minority, and the principle of the sale of certain lorries belonging to the British Transport Commission has been settled. Surely it is logical and natural that in those circumstances those lorries should be sold as soon as possible, and what is more natural than that the ordinary way of selling lorries should be encouraged?
Before the coming into force of the Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order, 1952, it was quite an ordinary thing for transport lorries to be bought by hire-purchase. The ordinary consequence was not bankruptcy and foreclosure, or finance companies running lorries, and all the fantastic stories we have been hearing from hon. Gentlemen opposite. That was the ordinary way in which lorries passed,

especially among small men coming new to the business.
That form of transaction was limited for the purpose of steadying the finances of the country at a time when hon. Gentlemen opposite left office and my right hon. Friends had to deal with a considerable mess. That was the only reason why those financial provisions were brought into operation. My right hon. Friends have done something about clearing up the mess since then.

Mr. James Simmons: On a point of order. Is it in order to discuss the general financial position of the country in this debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, certainly not.

Mr. Wilson: I am referring to the Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreements (Control) Order, 1952, under which this Licence is issued. I have pointed out that it was brought into being for a special purpose and that the conditions are a good deal better now. It is only natural that there should be some relaxation of that Order. It is all the more proper that relaxation should take place first in the place where it is most needed. This relaxation is needed to enable these lorries which this House has decided shall be sold to be sold in the way they normally are sold. What could be more natural than that?
All these fantastic red herrings about the United Dominions Trust and Mr. Gibson Jarvie have nothing to do with the Licence. The Licence is not restricted to any one company. It is true that the Road Haulage Association has an arrangement with the United Dominions Trust which will enable the members of the Association, if they so wish, to take advantage of those facilities. They are under no obligation to do so. They can go to any finance house they like. They can go to their bank or to any other hire-purchase company which, under this Licence, will give exactly the same facilities.
I have no financial interest in the United Dominions Trust. I wish I had. As far as I know, it is a prosperous and well-run company. I have never had any contact with Mr. Gibson Jarvie, except that once at a dinner I heard him make a political speech when he criticised hon. Gentlemen opposite. But those are issues


which have nothing whatever to do with the Licence. I submit that it is time that we pulled ourselves together—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am talking about the House as a whole. Hon. Members should confine their remarks to the purpose of this Licence. It is a most appropriate and logical Licence to issue in the circumstances, and I do not think that we should waste much time in debating the matter.

10.18 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): We have had a most interesting and quite spritely debate, reminiscent of the days early in the year. It has brought forth one or two unexpected comments. I always listen with the greatest interest to what is said by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), but I could not follow the whole of his argument. I know how important it is that there should be proper maintenance. I also know that the man whose whole livelihood depends on the proper condition of his handful of lorries devotes a lot of attention, if he is wise, to looking after those lorries properly.
When I heard from the hon. Gentleman what really amounted to this line of argument I was a little surprised. The suggestion was that the more money one has the safer one is on the roads—rationing by the purse; anyone who needs hire-purchase facilities is not as safe on the roads as anyone who does not. That is a very curious philosophy, but perhaps it is not so curious when it comes from a party who are now showing a concentrated desire to prevent small men getting into the business at all.
Running through the whole debate there has been this other inconsistency; that if the effect of the introduction of hire-purchase into the business is to postpone over a period of years the repayment which would otherwise have to be made over 18 months, presumably people would be less likely to go bankrupt over that period than they would if they had to pay it all back in 18 months. Again, I have been a little puzzled as to the logic of the argument.
The debate began by both the hon. Member for Enfield, East and the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) quoting from the Chancellor

of the Exchequer. They talked about credit policy and credit restrictions and hire-purchase agreements as a whole. I do not propose tonight to make a statement—it is not my province to do so—on hire-purchase as a whole, which must, of course, be seen within the general framework of the Government's economic policy, but Parliament has come to certain conclusions and we have to ensure that those conclusions are carried out.
I was particularly interested when the hon. Gentlemen quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but they did not quote what he also said on 20th April, when talking about loans for the purchase of these lorries:
It is, of course, in the national interest that road transport, by being returned to private enterprise, should be able to give increased help to industry in general whether at home or in efforts to increase our exports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 642.]
This Licence, as no hon. Gentleman has denied, has come as no surprise. I made it quite plain in the House on 27th April that this would be so. I was particularly keen to make it plain before we finally said goodbye to the Transport Bill. On that date we were considering the Lords Amendments. I did not want it to be said afterwards that I had been guilty in this case, as had been said in another, of a lack of candour. I said:
There is one point which will eventually come to the House in the form of a Statutory Instrument, which can be prayed against. It will be in the name of the President of the Board of Trade. I have consulted my right hon. Friend the President who has authorised me to say that it is his intention in the event of the Transport Bill becoming law to make an order amending the Hire-Purchase and Credit Sale Agreement (Control) Order, 1952, to exempt from the requirements of that Order hire-purchase agreements relating to the disposal of Road Haulage Executive vehicles."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 1833.]
The purpose of the exemption is, as the House knows, to enable people with limited means to acquire these transport units. Constantly, in that debate, I stressed the Government's view that this is essentially an industry in which, while the whole field should not be covered by small operators, there was a great room for a large number of operators.
Under the existing regulation—the hon. and learned Member for Kettering called it the "proper regulation" or the "proper formula"; the Opposition


prayed against it when it was introduced a year or so ago—a minimum of one-third of the cash price must be deposited, and repayment periods must not exceed 18 months. The hon. and learned Gentleman ventured to guess that the more distasteful of those two regulations was the immediate deposit. He is wrong, and I am sure he will agree that he has been wrong once or twice in the passage of the Transport Bill. The more difficult restriction from the point of view of the small operator is the obligation to pay the money back within 18 months.
It is quite clear that it would be absurd if the declared intention, not only of the Government but of Parliament, as shown in the Transport Act, 1953, was frustrated by a regulation of the Government itself, for then all the weary months spent by hon. Members on both sides of the House in discussing the Transport Bill would not reap their full and proper reward.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East and other hon. Members appeared to see something very sinister in the operation of finance houses and of hire-purchase in general. I have watched with interest the steady growth in hire-purchase of the great Co-operative movement. No doubt hon. Members opposite will be hearing from the Co-operative Party in the next few days. We had a very fierce debate on the formation of Transport Unit Finance, Limited. I made it absolutely plain that no privilege whatever would be given to this very reputable body which would not be given to anybody else and that no facilities would be made available to the United Dominions Trust, one of the parents of that body, or their customers, which would not be available equally to others.
I think hon. Gentlemen will agree that if it is the intention of Parliament that a disposal should be carried out in this form, that a large number of small people should have the chance to come back, and that they will be prevented or handicapped from doing so by the absence of hire-purchase facilities, then those hire-purchase facilities ought to be provided.
I have been exceedingly surprised by the constant suggestion that what is likely to happen is that hire-purchase companies will make such a bad choice of their potential customers that they will

be forced to foreclose. I thought it might be suggested that they would deliberately choose bad people in order in that way to become operators in road haulage. I am glad that that particularly stupid suggestion has not been made, for they are finance houses and not operators of road haulage businesses. If they were as stupid in their choice of clients as some hon. Gentlemen seem to think, I cannot see why the Labour Party are so frightened or anxious about their activities.
There is one final point. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering spoke about the legal owner. There is no doubt that the finance house will be the legal owner of the lorry until the payments have been made by the customer. Possession will pass straight away to the operator, and the legal ownership when the last payment on the instalments, usually a nominal sum, has been paid. The Government are satisfied that in this way they are giving expression to the declared intention of Parliament, and I hope that, on reflection, hon. Gentlemen opposite will decide to withdraw their Prayer.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: The Minister has been commend-ably brief and customarily lucid. I shall do my best to follow him on both counts. I am glad he answered his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) in his concluding sentences, because the hon. Member was obviously under the impression that the small men who are coming into this business, and who avail themselves of this Statutory Instrument, will own their lorries. They will, of course, do nothing of the sort, as the Minister made clear.
What we are doing, if this Instrument goes through, is to sell to Transport Unit Finance and to other finance houses in the City of London a large number of lorries, which they will then hire out to a number of small men in the country. Those small men, provided that they maintain their instalments over an unstated period of years, will eventually become owners of the lorries. I see the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet shaking his head at what I am saying, but nothing that I have said so far is out of line with the facts. It is merely a repetition in a slightly longer way of what the Minister has said.
I do not for the Life of me see why, in an industry in which there is going to be much more competition during the next few years and many more bankruptcies, it should be thought that it is a good principle to induce men of straw to come in. That is what we are doing. The Minister says that his purpose is to encourage small men; I say to the Minister that at any time prior to the passage of this Act it was open to anyone to buy a lorry. Anyone could apply for an A licence to operate within a radius of 25 miles, or for a B licence to carry both his own goods and other people's goods. He could get a C licence if he wanted to operate a lorry to carry his own goods. Up to this moment, such a man has had to prove that he is not a man of straw by depositing one-third of the purchase price and repaying the balance over a period of 18 months. If it is really the Minister's intention to encourage small men in the haulage business of one sort or another, either by carrying their own goods or somebody else's, why has he waited this long time to introduce this Licence? Why did he not do it a year ago? Why did the Government put a restriction on at all?
The Minister is not interested in the small man at all. That is quite demonstrable. He is interested in selling off these lorries helter-skelter, pell-mell, as fast as he can, irrespective of the consequences to the country. That is the whole of this operation—speed and haste. Those are the watchwords, says the editorial in one of the motor transport papers which has backed the Minister all through—" Speed and haste. Let us get rid of them, let us shovel away these lorries and break up British Road Services as soon as we can, irrespective of the loss to the country." That is what hon. Gentlemen opposite are putting their seal to tonight, and that is the reason we oppose this Licence.
It seems to me that three things follow quite naturally from this. If men of straw are introduced into this business—as the Minister will do when he demands no deposit for a lorry and when he allows repayments to be spread over as long a period as possible—when they are forced to raise money to pay their instalments, they will go in for cut-throat competition as they did before.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: What possible reason has the hon. Gentleman for thinking that finance houses will not demand substantial deposits?

Mr. Callaghan: During the course of our earlier debates, I asked the Minister whether he had asked Transport Unit Finance these questions, but I never had a reply from him. Has he asked them? I will gladly give way if he cares to tell us whether or not they will in fact ask for a deposit.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman had better buy a lorry himself and find out.

Mr. Callaghan: I am bound to say that I would not dream of venturing my money in such a chancy business, and any small man who does so will be asking for trouble. It is quite clear the Minister does not know whether deposits are to be asked for. Indeed, it is fairly obvious that they will not be asked for, otherwise there would be no point in introducing this Licence. There is no point in introducing this Licence to give this relief and then hinting or insinuating that deposits will be demanded. The two things are contradictory.
The Minister knows from the previous history of the industry that if men are hard put to it against fierce competition, have little reserve and have to pay their instalments and their wages, they first have recourse to cutting rates. If the Minister reads the transport papers he knows, as I know, that rate-cutting is already starting, even among the existing operators. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may cheer that; and, of course, within limits it is a good thing; but the history of the industry shows that in the long run rate-cutting gets to the point where it is bad for the industry, and bad for trade and commerce generally. That has been the history of transport during the last 30 years, so for heaven's sake do not let us argue that again.
When driven to that and having cut their rates, the next thing that happens—as is clearly shown from the Minister's own officers—is that inadequate maintenance is given to the vehicles; maintenance is the next thing to suffer. I concede to the Minister straight away that this is the reason large firms are much better in this field than small men; they have got proper facilities, financial reserves


and backing to keep their vehicles in good repair. It is well known that large companies have a higher standard of maintenance and safer vehicles on the roads than the small man, and my hon. Friend for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) was quite right in relating this very closely to the question of road accidents.
Having cut rates and ignored maintenance, the third thing that happens with men of straw is that they start to cut wages, which gets us back to a sweated industry once more, and, as we know very well from our experience when we took over this industry, there follow rat-traps and sweat-shops instead of proper accommodation for the staff.
These things flow from having in the industry men who have not got the financial backing that they should have if they are to run it on sound, commercial lines. We say that the Minister is encouraging into this industry men of straw who have not got financial reserves, and he is not even giving them the protection given under the Hire-Purchase Act of the late Ellen Wilkinson. Under this Licence the system known as the "snatch back" will operate. As hon. Members may know, if under the Hire-Purchase Acts one buys a commodity the price of which is below a certain maximum, one can keep the article, and the firm selling it cannot get it back under certain conditions. But that will not apply here. These people are entirely in the hands of the financiers who will own the vehicles.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): Will the hon. Gentleman state on what grounds he says that hire-purchase will be free from the ordinary permanent statutes? This is an exemption from the provisions of a previous Order. It does not say a word about the Hire-Purchase Acts.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman should really look up his Acts before he comes here. I did not say it would be free from the permanent statutes. I said it would not come under the Wilkinson Act. Perhaps I maybe allowed to explain it to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he as Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will have to administer it. The Wilkinson Act, as it is termed, provides that if an article costs less than £100, then it cannot be recovered by the

man who has sold it, except in specific conditions. As these lorries will be valued at more than £100, that Act will not apply.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): Quite ridiculous.

Mr. Callaghan: The Attorney-General says "Quite ridiculous." Does he want to give us his interpretation, because, if he does, I will willingly give way? Evidently he does not. The House will know how to treat an Attorney-General who says from his seat that something is quite ridiculous, but has not the courage to get to his feet and say so.
I want to say one more thing to the Minister in this connection. The sale of vehicles under this special dispensation only applies to vehicles which are sold by the British Transport Commission to the finance houses. The finance houses then hire the vehicles to the small men, and the small men put them on the road.
I want to envisage what is perhaps not a very likely but a possible contingency. Supposing that within six months of buying the vehicle for, say, £500 or £600—which is a reasonable price for a secondhand vehicle—the man smashes it up. Presumably he will be covered by the insurance company who will pay him the value of the vehicle; but then he has to buy a new vehicle with which to replace the smashed vehicle. But this provision will not apply to the new vehicle. It applies only to vehicles purchased from the Commission, and if the man buys a new vehicle as the result of having had an accident with the first one, he will then have to put down one-third of the purchase price and repay the balance by instalments over a period of 18 months.
I put it to the Minister that he has really got himself into a jam on this, because he is going to make it more difficult for the small man who has run into trouble to sustain himself than for the large people who have no need to have recourse to hire-purchase. The plain truth is that the right hon. Gentleman is putting through this Licence not out of concern for the small man, not because he wants the best price for the lorries, not because he wants a stable industry, but because he is determined, by hook or by crook, to get rid of these lorries as quickly as possible. It is a shame that any Government should descend to these sort of


tactics in order to carry out their General Election pledges.
I suppose we all want to get home, and I shall now draw to a conclusion; but I say to the Minister that we cannot assent

to this Statutory Instrument, and I ask my hon. Friends to carry their decision into the Division Lobby.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 194.

Division No. 4.]
AYES
[10.40 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield (Crews)
Hamilton, W. W.
Pearson, A.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Hannan, W.
Peart, T. F.


Awbery, S. S.
Hargreaves, A.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hastings, S.
Porter, G.


Balfour, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Bartley, P.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Proctor, W. T.


Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood
Herbison, Miss M.
Pryde, D. J.


Benson, G.
Hobson, C. R.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Beswick, F.
Holman, P.
Reeves, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Rhodes, H.


Bing, G. H. C.
Houghton, Douglas
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blackburn, F
Hoy, J. H.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Blenkinsop, A
Hubbard, T. F.
Ross, William


Blyton, W. R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Royle, C.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Short, E. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Burke, W. A.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Skeffington, A. M.


Callaghan, L. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Champion, A. J
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Clunie, J.
Keenan, W.



Coldrick, W.
King, Dr. H. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Colliok, P. H.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lewis, Arthur
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McGovern, J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Deer, G.
McInnes, J.
Thornton, E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McLeavy, F.
Timmons, J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wallace, H. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wells, William (Walsall)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Watt, D. G.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fienburgh, W.
Mason, Roy
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mellish, R. J.
Wigg, George


Follick, M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Frater, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Morley, R.
Willey, F. T.


Gibson, C. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Glanville, James
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Gooch, E. G.
Moyle, A.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mulley, F. W.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Grey, C. F.
Murray, J. D.
Woodbum, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hale, Leslie
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Popplewell and


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Mr. Arthur Allen.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Birch, Nigel
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)


Alport, C. J. M.
Bishop, F. P.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Black, C. W.
Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.


Arbuthnot, John
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cole, Norman


Athlon, H. (Chelmsford)
Boyle, Sir Edward
Colegate, W. A.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Brains, B. R.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Craddook, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Banks, Col. C.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Barber, Anthony
Brooman-Wnite, R. C.
Crouch, R. F.


Barlow, Sir John
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Baxter, A. B.
Bullard, D. G.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Burden, F. F. A.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Campbell, Sir David
Drayson, G. B.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Carr, Robert
Drewe, Sir C.


Bennett, William (Woodtide)
Cary, Sir Robert
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Bevins, J. R (Toxteth)
Channon, H.
Duthie, W. S.




Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Redmayne, M.


Fell, A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Peterfield)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Renton, D. L. M.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, Ft. F.
Lindsay, Martin
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Rodgers, John (Seveneaks)


Fort, R.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Roper, Sir Harold


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Longden, Gilbert
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Scott, R. Donald


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
McCallum, Major D.
Scott-Milter, Cmdr. R.


Galbrailh, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Shepherd, William


Godber, J. B.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Gower, H. R.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Speir, R. M.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Stevens, G. P.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Grimond, J.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Grintston, Sir Robert (Westfeury)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Storey, S.


Hall, John (Wyoombe)
Manningham-Builer, Sir R. E.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Studholme, H. G.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Summers, G. S.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Marples, A. E.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maude, Angus
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hay, John
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Heath, Edward
Mellor, Sir John
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Molson, A. H. E.
Tilney, John


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Turton, R. H.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.



Hirst, Geoffrey
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Neave, Airey
Vane, W. M. F.


Hollis, M. C.
Nicholls, Harmar
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Horobin, I. M.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Oakshott, H. D.
Wellwood, W.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Hurd, A. R.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wills, G.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wilton, Geoffrey (Truro)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wood, Hon. R.


Kaberry, D.
Pitman, I. J.
York, C.


Kerr, H. W.
Powell, J. Enoch



Lambert, Hon. G.
Profumo, J. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Major Conant and Mr. Vosper.

GLASSWARE

10.45 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Miscellaneous Controls (Revocation) Order, 1953 (S.I., 1953, No. 1078), dated 10th July, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, 1953, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
This Order deals with the revocation of four other Orders, but the one with which I am particularly concerned is the third—the Glassware (Control of Manufacture and Supply) Order, 1948. At this somewhat late hour in the evening I might explain to the House that even if we were to have a Division the effect upon the parent Order would be the same, whether or not the Prayer were carried, because if we carried the Prayer it would be without prejudice to the validity of anything already done under this Order, and what has already been

done under it is to destroy the parent Order.
The object of this Prayer is, primarily, to draw attention to the effect of the annulment of the parent Order upon the glass industry, and particularly upon one branch of the industry, namely, cut glass. The brief history of the earlier Orders is that in 1945 there was a Miscellaneous Goods (Prohibition of Manufacture and Supply) Order, which prohibited the manufacture of certain types of glass, including their import. Then there was the Glassware (Control of Manufacture and Supply) Order of 1948, which omitted manufacture, subject to licence.
It is this 1948 Order which the present Order has revoked. The 1948 Order provided for a licensing system both for the home trade and for exports, and it enabled the Board of Trade to place an embargo on the import of most forms of glassware. The result of that Order was


to create great prosperity in the glass industry of this country. That prosperity was used by the industry with great initiative and enterprise to encourage the export of British glassware.
The figures are extremely significant. In 1938, the export of glassware was £1,600,000 in value. By 1951, thanks largely to the operation of this Order which we are now revoking, it had gone up to £14 million. By 1952, it had fallen slightly, but still stood at £12,400,000. That represented an increase, over the period from 1938 to 1952, of 675 per cent. on export sales.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I take it that my hon. Friend is not quoting the figures for cut glass?

Sir H. Linstead: No. I was quoting, first, the figures for the glass industry as a whole, and I was then going to refer specifically to the cut glass figures, which are much smaller.
In 1935, they amounted to £250,000 in production, of which £178,000 went for export. By 1951 the figure of production was up to £1,376,000, of which £860,000 went for export, so that the result of operation of the parent Order was an enormous increase in the prosperity of the glass industry here, with an exceptional contribution to the export trade. I drew attention to the fact that between 1951 and 1952 there was a fall of some £2 million in the export figures of the glass industry as a whole, and that marks the beginning of foreign competition—competition not in the home market, but mainly from the Czechs and Germans in the export markets.
For the proper understanding of the Order that we are considering tonight, it is, I think, desirable that I should mention one or two examples of the effect of German and Czech competition. The Germans and Czechs, for example, about a year ago were quoting for pint beer bottles at 33s. 6d. per gross in Malta, which was about 7s. 9d. per gross below what our own exporters were able to quote in Malta.

Mr. H. Strauss: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but, of course, the Order that was revoked and to which he is referring, did not concern beer bottles at

all. What it was dealing with might roughly be described as cut glass. What he is now talking about is not the subject of the Order.

Sir H. Linstead: I have at any rate been able to give an example of foreign competition and possibly I had better content myself with that particular example and not go any more into the broader field.
Within the strict field of cut glass I would just draw attention to one example of foreign competition which is directly in that field, and that is the practice of some exporters from this country to foreign countries sending abroad samples of British cut glass so that they may be able to mould them in Japan and possibly in Germany. Then that mould copy of British cut glass is sent back to this country or sold in competition with our own cut glass in foreign markets.
Without pressing further the question of foreign competition in the export market, I would draw attention now to the difference between the point of view of the Minister in revoking this Order and the point of view of the industry. The Minister, of course, is repealing this Order to permit a free manufacture in the home market without licence so that he may forward something which we all wish to see—the further liberalisation of international trade.
The industry itself, while not opposed to that type of liberalisation, finds that the Minister is compelled, at the same time, because of our obligations under international agreements, to withdraw any ban on imports of foreign cut glass into this country. So the difference of opinion which has developed is the difference between the liberalisation of our trade and the free entry of imported glass into this country. That is undoubtedly one example of a state of affairs which, over the whole industrial field, will become increasingly common.
The facts of the decision which has been taken by the Board of Trade, are probably best illustrated by the actual words of the Board of Trade. On 7th September they said this:
Since the restrictions on the manufacture and supply of cut glass have now been removed it is no longer possible to continue the present total ban on imports. The Board of Trade have therefore decided to abolish restrictions on the imports of cut, engraved and etched domestic glass ware from the scheduled


territories, which comprise all the British Commonwealth except Canada,
and then various other territories are named. At the same time, in consequence of the repeal of the Order, they are making arrangements to allow imports of cut glass from European countries,
first of all according to a quota and then, subject to our general balance of payments situation, we shall almost certainly have to provide for increased imports of cut glass in future periods.
The effect of this foreign competition has already begun to make itself felt in the industry. The figures of employment in the industry are worth noting. In 1938, in this section there were 617 glass blowers and 947 decorators; in 1951, 570 glass blowers and 392 decorators; and by 1953 the glass blowers were down to 454 and the decorators 414. In other words, you have got in a craft industry a series of figures showing a steady reduction in the number of craftsmen employed.
It is already clear that more of the craftsmen will find themselves redundant. They are already seeking employment elsewhere and once highly skilled craftsmen leave an industry there can be no question at all of their returning. So we are faced with the slow extinction of one of the oldest craft industries. If this Order goes—as indeed, it has already done—then the quotas which have protected the industry will go and the imports from Czechoslovakia, Ireland and Germany will come in without any limitation, and it will no longer be possible for the Minister to prevent the competition of low foreign wages by any increase of protective duties, because for the time being under G.A.T.T. we are prevented from doing that.
I ask the Minister, what protection is it possible for him to offer if the fears of the cut glass industry are found to be well founded, and, if in fact, the deterioration of this industry continues? What can he do if the revocation of the Order is to stand to prevent the extinction of one of our old craft industries?

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to second the Motion.
It is not only my habitual habit of praying that has led me to support the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead). By doing so I want to make

it clear that the shock at the past stupidity of the Government is shared by all parties. The country as a whole is upset by the scandalous disregard of our old-established industries by the doctrinaire decontrol policy of the present Government.
I would also make it clear that the Glass Manufacturers' Federation like the Labour Party believes in unity. We stand together. Where British trade goes the good name of my constituents as glass makers go. We do not make cut glass but we believe that if any section of the industry is threatened by the stupidity of the Government we have both to stand together.
That was why, on receiving reports from the Federation, I was convinced there was a straightforward and reasonable case to protect British industry and I decided to support the hon. Gentleman in the powerful case which he has made. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has paid attention to all that has been said, that he will try to rid himself of his doctrinaire prejudice and try to look, for a change, at the real commercial interests of the country.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. James Simmons: The hand-made glass trade is almost entirely situated in my constituency. It is called Stourbridge glass, but the glassworks are in my constituency, and the glass is known the world over.
Both employers and trade unions are most apprehensive about the effect of the Order on immediate employment and the future supply of skilled craftsmen, for it is likely to be serious. This is one of the older crafts whose excellent products have won fame for the skill of British craftsmanship all over the world. The real danger is that, as this generation of craftsmen dies out, the craft and the skill will disappear.
The hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) gave figures to show the steady decline in the number of craftsmen employed in the industry. Roughly one-third of the glass blowers and more than half the decorators have been lost to the industry, which is very serious. Training is essential to maintain the number of craftsmen, but young men are deterred from following in the footsteps of their fathers—it is largely a family craft—by


the uncertainty which has dogged the industry in recent years. The craftsmen themselves who have become redundant through loss of trade have been absorbed into other trades where the remuneration is higher, and the incentive to return to the industry is not very great.
Great efforts have been made by the industry to improve plant and training methods since the war. The industry is not seeking protection to encourage inefficiency but is seeking protection against dumping and unfair competition. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some satisfaction.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Jack Jones: I can make no claim for my constituency about cut glass, but in Rotherham we have one of the oldest established ordinary glass making concerns in the country, and I am gravely concerned about the situation. It does not follow that, because the cut glass industry is about to suffer, the ordinary glass industry will not do likewise, for there is the question of the import of the vital raw material from which glass is made, whether it is beer bottles or cut glass decanters, and as this is bought in bulk it will, in the aggregate, have a serious effect.
I am particularly concerned about the loss of craftsmen. Ever since I have been in the House I have heard from the Government Benches the need for Britain to reassert itself in the world's markets. We must hand it to the Stourbridge district, because it has had a tremendous market, particularly in America, where it has earned enormous sums of dollars.
I am concerned about the fears that the glass workers and their ancillary workers have about the situation. These are very skilled men who are not easily replaced, and I hope something can be done. I hope that the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) will carry this Motion to a Division and let it be seen that on occasions this House has at heart not one particular industry but the needs of the country as a whole.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: As Stourbridge is in my constituency I should like to say a word about Stourbridge glass, which is world famous. The raw materials which go into it are indigenous

and make no demand upon foreign currency, and these materials and these craftsmen produce a very valuable dollar earner. If young men see no future in the glass trade they will leave it and go into engineering, or other more prosperous industries, and once the craftsmen are lost, unless the rising generation of craftsmen can be trained to take their place, there can be only one result, and that is that Stourbridge cut glass will go out of existence. For that reason, I support the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead).

11.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I thank all those who have spoken in this short debate for their brevity. I appreciate their anxiety for a very celebrated craft industry of this country, and I agree with the remarks made in praise of the achievements of this industry.
I must, however, remind the House what this Prayer asks. It is objecting to the revocation of the Glassware (Control of Manufacture and Supply) Order, 1948. Now, what did that Order do? It prohibited the supply, except under licence, of domestic glassware decorated by cutting, engraving and etching. I think it would be convenient for all if we referred to it briefly as cut glass. That control was originally imposed in 1942, so that the industry could be switched to war work. It was subsequently maintained to promote exports.
What did that Order do? It prohibited the supply, except under licence, of cut glassware in this country. Does any hon. Member, in any quarter of the House, consider for one moment that that Order could be made permanent? It was certainly bound to go, just as the control of decorated china went. If we believe in this industry, as I know hon. Members who have spoken tonight do believe in it, we cannot think that a sensible way of looking after its interests is to prevent the British people from buying its products except under licence. That really does not make sense. That control was bound to go.
Nor, to do justice to the speeches that have been made, is the revocation Order itself criticised. What is criticised is something quite different, namely, the policy on imports. The House would certainly not


expect me—and I have no doubt Mr. Speaker would call me to order if I attempted—to deal with import policy in response to this Prayer. Nevertheless, perhaps so that we should get some sense of proportion in this matter Mr. Speaker would allow me just to give the figures of the quotas that have been allowed for the last half of the present year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), who initiated this debate, spoke of the passing of quotas. What, of course, passed was the total prohibition. What we have at the moment are quotas. Let me give the figures of these quotas.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Quotas of what?

Mr. Strauss: Quotas of what we can call cut glass. Quotas of what is allowed to be imported. I said so at the beginning, but my hon. and gallant Friend could not have followed me. They are as follow: Austria, £700; Belgium, £5,000; France, £8,200: Holland, £1,500; Italy, £3,000; Sweden, £3,200; Germany, £2,000; Czechoslovakia, £3,000; and Yugoslavia, £1,000, making a total of £27,600, or, roughly, between 5 and 6 per cent. of the home production. Do not, therefore, let us wholly exaggerate the imports that have been coming in since the revocation of the Order.
Hon. Members have shown their concern—and I agree with them—at the decline in the number of skilled craftsmen. But as hon. Members have very fairly said, they have gone out over a period of 15 years. That really is not connected with the revocation of this Order against which this Prayer is directed.

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: Will not the effect of the Government's action increase the difficulties of the industry and accelerate the rate of decline of these skilled craftsmen in a very important old British industry?

Mr. Strauss: I very much hope not, and I want to give, later in my speech, some grounds for that hope by mentioning what is happening at present. I would say to the hon. and learned Member that whatever may be done for this industry, it would be perfectly hopeless were we to endeavour to save it by prohibiting the British public, except under licence, from buying its products. That simply does not make sense.

Sir H. Linstead: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend for an interpretation of the figures he has given? For what period of time are these quotas to operate? Is it not true that his own Department have said that we shall almost certainly have to provide for increased imports of cut glass in future periods?

Mr. Strauss: I said that the figures I have given were for the second six months of the current year. I am not disputing in the least that there may be later changes which will be made known in due course. What I am saying—and I am sure the House appreciates it—is that it does not arise on this Order, and that I should be out of order if I entered into a general discussion on import policy.

Mr. George Porter: In view of the statement which the Parliamentary Secretary has just made, to the effect that the matter does not arise out of the Order, will he now proceed to deal with something which has been suggested by the mover of the Motion and which is within the Order, that it is the opinion of the trade that the Order, passed by the Labour Government, in 1948, gave an impetus to the trade? They were satisfied with the position, and they now object to the withdrawal of that Order.

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Member is only inviting me to indulge in vain repetition. I have not denied at any point that there was a period when this Order played a useful part. It is no part of my case to' deny that, and I have not done so. What I have said, and I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will appreciate the force of it, is that by its nature this form of control which prevents the public from buying the products of an industry, except under licence, is not one which the majority of hon. Members would wish to make permanent in any industry.

Mr. Porter: rose—

Mr. Strauss: I think I had better proceed, unless the hon. Member has a new point.

Mr. Porter: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman now suggesting that the market for this type of commodity was being starved?

Mr. Strauss: I expect it is due to my own stupidity, but I really cannot follow the hon. Member if he thinks that that is a different point. I have endeavoured to make clear why I thought the Order against the revocation of which the Prayer is moved was incapable of being a permanent part of our legislation.
What is the present position? I should be sorry if hon. Members were to leave the House with a feeling of gloom about this important and very worthy industry. I dare say the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will have noticed—indeed, I am surprised he did not mention it in his speech—the trade note which appeared in the "Financial Times" of 28th October headed, "Cut glass, export trade improving." It was quite an important note, giving encouraging facts which showed that the Stourbridge manufacturers of cut glass are slowly but steadily improving their export trade. I have no doubt that that is known to the hon. Member who represents that constituency.
I know the House wishes me to be brief, but perhaps I might be allowed to mention the latest report that I have received from our own regional office in Birmingham, with which I am certain the hon. Member is familiar. That report says that there is at present full employment in the industry, home sales are improving—that, I agree, may be partly due to seasonal trade—the export position is steadily improving, Australian orders are better, and, last but not least, the flow of orders from the dollar area is being maintained.
In nothing that I have said am I denying for one moment the serious problems of this industry and its need to maintain the greatest efficiency, but I am sure we should be wrong in thinking that a solution of that problem lay in the sort of control against which this Order is

directed. A Minister at the Board of Trade, I suppose, must look at all the industries which come within his purview with equal justice and favour, but perhaps I might be allowed to disclose one personal fact, and that is my own love, now spreading over a fairly long life, of the products of the English glass industry.

I believe that in the quality of the metal, in the workmanship and the excellence of its best designs it has no superior anywhere in the world. I share the desire that has been expressed in all quarters that this great industry may prosper, notwithstanding all its difficulties, which I do not minimise. I think it gave us some knowledge of what it was capable of earlier this year when, of all the Coronation souvenirs which were produced, some of the very worthiest came from this industry.

I hope to have an opportunity, at a fairly early date, of visiting some of the centres of this industry and seeing something of its problems at first hand. I suggest to the House in all seriousness that we should really be deceiving ourselves if we thought that any of those problems could be solved by continuing to say to the British public, "You shall not buy the products of this industry except under licence."

Sir H. Linstead: I am disappointed that although the Minister has rejected the remedy proposed by the Prayer, he has not proposed any alternative which might be favourable to the industry. Nevertheless, he has spoken sympathetically and, with the permission of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 141.

Division No. 5.]
AYES
[11.25 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Blackburn, F.
Craddock, George (Bradford S.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Blenkinsop, A.
Crosland, C. A. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blyton, W. R.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Brockway, A. F.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Baird, J.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Bartley, P.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Deer, G.


Bence, C. R.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Driberg, T. E. N.


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Callaghan, L. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Benson, G.
Champion, A. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Beswick, F.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Clunie, J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Collick, P. H.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)




Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Ross, William


Fienburgh, W.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Royle, C.


Fletcher, Eire (Islington, E.)
Lewis, Arthur
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Foot, M. M.
Lindgren, G. S.
Short, E. W.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Logan, D. G.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Freeman, John (Watford)
MacColl, J. E.
Skeffington, A. M.


Gibson, C. W.
McGhee, H. G.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Grey, C. F.
McGovern, J.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McInnes, J.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McLeavy, F.
Snow, J. W.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hale, Leslie
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sparks, J. A.


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Steele, T.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hannan, W.
Manuel, A. C.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hargreaves, A.
Mason, Roy
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hayman, F. H.
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Healey, Denis (Leeds S. E.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Herbison, Miss M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thornton, E.


Holman, P.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Wallace, H. W.


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Mulley, F. W.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Houghton, Douglas
Oswald, T.
West, D. G.


Hoy, J. H.
Paget, R. T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hubbard, T. F.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pearson, A.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearl, T. F.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Willey, F. T.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Popplewell, E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Porter, G.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Proctor, W. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.



Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Rhodes, H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanion)
Mr. George Wigg and


Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Mr. Simmons.


King, Dr. H. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)





NOES


Ailken, W. T.
Gower, H. R.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Alport, C. J. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Neave, A. M. S.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nicholls, Harmar


Arbuthnot, John
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Banks, Col. C.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Oakshott, H. D.


Barber, Anthony
Hay, John
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Barlow, Sir John
Heald, Sir Lionel
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Baxter, A. B.
Heath, Edward
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Higgs, J. M. C.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pitman, I. J.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Raikes, Sir Victor


Bevins, J. R. (Toxleth)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Redmayne, M.


Bishop, F. P.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Ronton, D. L. M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hyltons-Foster, H. B. H.
Roper, Sir Harold


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Bullard, D. G.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Burden, F. F. A.
Kaberry, D.
Scott, R. Donald


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Kerr, H. W.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Campbell, Sir David
Lambert, Hon. G.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Carr, Robert
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Speir, R. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Lindsay, Martin
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stoddart-Soott, Col. M.


Cole, Norman
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Storey, S.


Crosthwarte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Longden, Gilbert
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Crouch, R. F.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Studholme, H. G.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Summers, G. S.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Drayson, G. B.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Fell, A.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tilney, John


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Marples, A. E.
Turton, R. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maude, Angus
Vane, W. M. F.


Fort, R.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Vosper, D. F.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire. W.)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Mellor, Sir John
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hilihead)
Molson, A. H. E.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Godber, J. B.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Gough, C. F. H.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Wellwood, W.







Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Wills, G.



Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Wood, Hon. R.
Sir Cedric Drewe and




Major Conant.

Resolved:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Miscellaneous Controls (Revocation) Order, 1953 (S.I., 1953, No. 1078), dated 10th July, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: An important and serious situation has developed and I should have thought that the Government Chief Whip, having involved his party in defeat, would not be looking so jolly, as if he had achieved a triumph, especially when he has been rather cock-a-hoop lately with the majorities he has achieved and upon which he is entitled to pat himself on the back. He ought to be getting behind the Chair to tender his resignation, or if not he, at least, ought to be considering the matter in view of the fact that the Government have been defeated, and defeated, moreover, on a Motion moved by one of their own supporters. I should have thought at the very least that—

Sir William Darling: What is the business before the House?

Mr. Morrison: I would not expect the hon. Member to know what is before the House. The Motion before the House is "That this House do now adjourn." I think, also, that the Chief Patronage Secretary ought to have sent a message, or gone himself, to the Prime Minister, or, at the very least—and when I say the very least I mean it—to the Leader of the House, who is, of course, jointly responsible with the Patronage Secretary for this defeat so that they might be present when we are informed of the intentions of the Government.
This is a serious situation, because the Government have not only been defeated in the Lobby, but they have been defeated, as I have said, as a result of a Motion moved by one of their own sup-

porters. I suggest to whoever is in charge—and surely it is not the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade on such an occasion or even the President of the Board of Trade—that we are entitled to a statement of the Government's intentions in view of that defeat, which indicates a lack of confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers of which serious notice ought to be taken and upon which a statement ought to be made.
It is no good the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade trying to help the Government, because he is in no position to help them out. Here is this defeat on a Prayer submitted by a supporter of the Government, and I ask for a statement of the Government's intention in view of their defeat.

11.40 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): rose—

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Follow the advice of the "Daily Express"—resign.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I will relieve the right hon. Gentleman of the worst of his anxiety. This is not quite such a desperate or serious situation as he suggests. The Order which has been prayed against does not affect either our economic position or, indeed, the position of the Government, to anything like the extent which the right hon. Gentleman suggested. We shall, of course, examine the position, if, indeed, any action at all is necessary as a result of the decision which the House has just taken, but, in the meantime, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he need have no anxieties whatsoever about the situation. We are quite content with the position as it is.

Mr. Morrison: May I, by leave of the House, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we can take it that there will be a statement tomorrow by the Prime Minister, preferably, or the Leader of the House, about the Government's intentions? That is customary, and it is right. I know the difficulty of the President of the Board of Trade, because he has not been looking after this business, though it is his business. He has left it to the Parliamentary Secretary, with the sad


result with which he is now familiar. I submit that before the House disperses tonight—I think it is a reasonable request—the President of the Board of Trade, or somebody else, should give an undertaking that we shall have a statement from either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House tomorrow.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I told the right hon. Gentleman that I shall certainly look into the position which has been created. If, by any chance, anything should prove to be customary, it will certainly be done.

ROAD SAFETY

11.42 p.m.

Mr. William Keenan: Before I begin, perhaps you would be good enough to tell me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether my Adjournment debate will be curtailed in view of the business which has just taken place.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAudrew): Yes, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has lost seven minutes of his time.

Mr. Keenan: My reason for raising this subject tonight is that I was unable to take part in the debate on road safety on 28th July and I consider that questions might have been put to the Minister which are of more importance than some which were addressed to him. I wish to put them tonight. I wish to address questions on four subjects to the Home Office, because I am concerned with the way in which the law is being administered. The law is broken, and insufficient attention is given to dealing with those who break it. I wish to deal with the effect of alcohol upon motorists and the offences committed because of it, the roadworthiness of adults, speeding, and headlights.
There are very many people who are disturbed by the number of deaths on the roads, particularly those which occur after hotels and public houses close. It is then, as far as I can observe, that the incidence of injuries and deaths seems to rise. There seems no indication that the police are as alive to what is going on as they should be, or that they are taking strong enough action to deter those responsible. Nearly every country public house today has a great car park to accommodate the large number of motorists who go out "pub crawling."
Every motorist should either not drink at all when he is in charge of a vehicle or leave alcohol entirely alone, because it interferes with his judgment. In America, they have a test for motorists to find out the amount of alcohol that has been consumed. In this country 8 per cent. of accidents are attributed to alcohol, but I do not think that figure could be sustained if the facts were better known. What are the Home Office doing about this? Are they aware of this serious matter?
The figures of accidents and deaths during the last Road Safety Week were tragic. Last year, the number of deaths of children between five and 15 was simply alarming. In 1951, the figures were 554 killed and 32,000 seriously and slightly injured. In 1952, the figures were slightly better-460 and 31,000. But, in 1951, in addition to the number killed, there were 329 under five who were fatal casualties.
I know there are a great number of prosecutions for speeding in the courts, but not sufficient attention is paid to this offence. I understand that some motoring organisations think that the 30 m.p.h. speed limit should be raised to 40 m.p.h. I am prepared to stand in Whitehall any evening with the Home Secretary when he will find that there are many vehicles travelling between 40 and 50 m.p.h. in the vicinity of Scotland Yard.
I see the same sort of thing in Liverpool. This applies not only to private cars, but to buses. Let me say at once that the standard of driving and the road sense of bus drivers throughout the country is wonderful. The surprising thing is that they do so well. But even bus drivers, because of schedules, and so on, exceed the speed limit, and I shall take an early opportunity to invite the Chief Constable of Liverpool to visit certain spots to see these buses speeding.
When an accident occurs nobody ever admits that he was travelling at 30 or 40 miles an hour. He always says that he was travelling at 10 or 15 miles an hour. Similarly, when a man is summoned for a motoring offence involving the drinking of alcohol he says he has had nothing to eat and has drunk only one glass of sherry. My complaint is against these two offences of speeding and being under the influence of drink when driving a car, because they are the cause of accidents and death on the roads.
Some magistrates' benches complain they have not sufficient powers, yet most of them do not use to the full the powers they already have. Offenders get away too lightly. I call the attention of the Home Office to that, although I know they do not appoint magistrates. After some years of experience of the local highway authority dealing with the overloading of vehicles, and so on, I am satisfied that it would be a good thing to insist on having on the magisterial bench at least one person who is not a motorist. The motorist's point of view runs right through the administration in this field, and I am convinced it would be far better to insist on one member of the bench being a non-motorist, and so prevent the sympathy of fellow feeling being expressed in the courts when these offences are tried.
Now I should like to say a few words about headlights. I do not drive a car, because I do not possess one, but I have done a lot of travelling by car, and what annoys me, as it must the driver, is the glare of the headlights of oncoming traffic. There seems to be no standard of conduct or regulations governing it, as far as I know. I should like to know whether it is an offence to have glaring headlights, because they are certainly the cause of many accidents. When I have been travelling by car I have often wondered how the driver has avoided a serious accident when faced with glaring headlights and the careless and indifferent performance of some drivers on the road.
I also want to take this opportunity of telling the Under-Secretary of State that with the increase in the number of road users the standard of driving has deteriorated. I am assured of that by motorists. Something must be done about it. I am not satisfied—and I do not suppose that the Home Office are either—that there is sufficient control over the individual who is given a licence to drive.
The roadworthiness of vehicles is something about which I know motorists' organisations and others are very concerned. It is well known that there are on the road thousands of vehicles which are not fit to be on the road, and I should like to know whether the police are doing anything to ensure vehicles are in a fit condition to be on the road. I know the difficulties. Many motorists are

unable to get their cars repaired, or to get their brakes attended to as well as they should be. But these things must be dealt with in order to avert future tragedies.
After all, pedestrians do not commit suicide, and it is not reasonable or right that motorists should travel at any speed they like. Allowances must be made for children, and the fact that many motorists travel at more than 50 m.p.h. in built-up areas accounts for many of these accidents. We must do more than we have done up to now to protect the children and to stop them being murdered on the roads, because that is what it amounts to.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to deal with the four particular points I have mentioned, and will be able to give an assurance that his Department and the police will do more than is being done at present to prevent these murders on the roads.

11.55 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Kirk-dale (Mr. Keenan) for raising the important points he has mentioned, because this is a subject in which publicity can do nothing but good. I will try to deal with the points he has raised, though not necessarily in the order in which he spoke.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned speeding. I think he was talking particularly of drivers exceeding the 30 m.p.h. limit in built-up areas. In 1952, the police in England and Wales instituted proceedings in 54,000 such cases. They also issued written warnings in 7,000 further cases. The result of those proceedings was fines amounting to £109,000, an average of rather more than £2 a time, and 110 drivers were disqualified.
I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that that number of offenders is far too great, but I think it is true to say that the reason is not the usual reason which one finds where there are a large number of offences against the law, namely, contempt on the part of the public. I do not believe that the public as a whole is contemptuous of the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. On the contrary, I find that there is increasing public support for the principle of the 30 m.p.h. limit, and I am informed that the police also find that they are getting good support in that respect.
It is, of course, for the police to enforce the law in this matter. On the whole, it appears that breaches of the law are caused mainly by thoughtlessness on the part of a certain number of drivers. The right remedy for offences of that kind is to make as certain as possible that those who commit them will soon be caught. The practical difficulty is that many police forces are suffering from grave shortages of manpower. In addition, they have had numerous additional tasks thrust upon them in the last few years. The policy in London, and generally throughout the country, has been twofold; first, to concentrate on stopping speeding in the bad spots; and, secondly, to increase the number of traffic patrols.
May I say to the hon. Member for Kirkdale, who referred to speeding in Whitehall, that during the last nine months there have been only four accidents of a serious character in Whitehall. One occurred because someone fell down inside a bus, and three occurred to pedestrians who stepped off the pavement inadvisedly. There was no question of anyone exceeding the speed limit. So that, in this connection, Whitehall has a clean record, and I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be a waste of time to concentrate our resources in Whitehall when, in fact, there are places where serious accidents are taking place quite frequently.
The action of the police in these cases has met with some success. In spite of the increasing volume of traffic, the number of fatal accidents fell by over 13 per cent. in 1952. the last complete year. Indeed, there have only been two years since 1912 when there have been fewer accidents. One was a war year, and one was a year of petrol rationing. The number of fatal accidents in 1952 was 570. That is far too high. We would all wish to see it reduced, but I can assure the House that no one is more aware of that need than the police, and I can give a definite assurance that every possible effort will be made to reduce the number still further.
May I say a word about drunkenness in driving. The penalties in this connection are, on a summary conviction for a first offence, a fine of £50 or four months imprisonment, and on a second or subsequent offence, £100 or four months' imprisonment, or both. In both cases there is automatic forfeiture of the licence

for one year unless the court sees special reasons to order otherwise. Those are fairly severe penalties.

Mr. Keenan: Not exceeding those penalties?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Not exceeding those penalties. Those are severe penalties, and rightly so, but it is for the courts to decide what penalties shall be inflicted in particular cases. It is not for the Government, and it is certainly not my province here to comment on the penalties that the counts in fact inflict. Hon. Members are entitled to express their views here, and no doubt the hon. Member's views will receive publicity and come to the attention of magistrates.

Mr. Keenan: I hope so.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: In England and Wales, in 1952, the police prosecuted in 3,150 cases of drunkenness, either driving or in charge of a car. There were 233 sentences of imprisonment and 2,099 fines totalling £41,000—an average of about £20 each time. On the whole, therefore, these cases have not been dealt with particularly leniently by the courts.
The statistics of accidents caused by drunkenness do not provide a very reliable guide. I think that the most illuminating statement that I can make is to refer to the statement of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in his Report for 1952, where he puts drink and drugs as the last but one of 24 factors leading to road accidents. There is no strong reason, really, for suggesting that accidents are particularly likely to occur when people are coming out of the public houses in the evening.

Mr. Keenan: Do not the figures show that they are?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is quite true that the figures rise after 10 o'clock at night, but I am sure the hon. Member will agree that people are likely to leave other institutions than the public houses around 10 o'clock at night.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half-an-hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes past Twelve o'Clock a.m.